Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

THE CITY UNIVERSITY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Cross-Channel Hovercraft Terminal

Mr. Rees-Davies: asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in his study regarding the need to provide a suitable cross-Channel hovercraft terminal in south-east England; what are his conclusions; and whether he will publish them now in suitable form.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): We are not conducting such a study, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has reopened his inquiry into the use of Pegwell Bay for a hovercraft terminal.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a matter upon which he is undertaking some study, because of the great technological importance of the development of the hovercraft industry? Does he not agree that it is an integral part of any such study which should be going on to consider appropriate types so that we do not lose in the race against the United States of America to capture this valuable and important advance?

Mr. Speaker: Questions must be brief.

Dr. Bray: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think he will agree that the issue in the immediate inquiry is fairly clear. Both operators and the manufacturer of the hovercraft will be giving evidence, and this covers the technical problem from all sides.

Hovercraft (Pegwell Bay)

Mr. Rees-Davies: asked the Minister of Technology whether he has assessed the suitability of Pegwell Bay as a site from the point of view of the technical operation of hovercraft; and what is the result of this assessment.

Dr. Bray: The Department has made no assessment of the suitability of Pegwell Bay, and it is not for it to do so.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is essential from the technological, quite apart from the planning, aspect to consider which are the areas which would be most appropriate for the development of this industry? Will he undertake to do so forthwith?

Dr. Bray: As I just said, the immediate issue in this inquiry is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The technical evidence will come quite rightly from the two operators, who have different views about where to operate from, and from the manufacturers of the hovercraft.

Government Contracts

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Technology what cases of overcharging on Government contracts he is investigating.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the results of the inquiry into the costing of the preliminary Seacat missile contract to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The only case of possible overcharging now under investigation relates to the Seacat missile.

Mr. Ellis: How far has my right hon. Friend got with this investigation? We know very little about it so far and there is a great deal of public concern about what is happening at Short Bros. Can we have more information?

Mr. Benn: There are later Questions about Shorts. I will report to the House or this investigation as soon as I can.

Mr. Barnett: Is it not something of an academic point whether there is overcharging, because under the present system is not the only way in which we can obtain a refund to give a subsidy to the company?

Mr. Benn: I would rather not comment on this question for the reason which I have given, that this is only a possible case of overcharging. I would rather not comment until I am able to make a full statement.

Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total number of contracts let by his Ministry?

Mr. Benn: Not accurately without notice, but it is about 20,000 a year. Until we have equality of information and post costing we will not be absolutely certain that this sort of thing does not happen.

Concord Aircraft

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Technology what arrangements are being made to finance the production of the Concord aircraft for airline service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects that arrangements for financing Concord production will be completed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): The firms have been given all the authority they need at this stage to get production started. Discussions with the firms and our French partners on the means of financing the whole production phase should be completed later this year; meanwhile there is no delay to the programme.

Mr. Ellis: Is the firm completely happy that there is nothing to stop production from going ahead and that financial agreements have been arrived at? Earlier this year the firm said that in about the middle of the year it would want to know what the financing situation was.

Mr. Dell: I must emphasise what I said in my reply—that there is no hold-up in the production phase of this aircraft and, so far as I know, the firm is not concerned about the present position.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister accept that the men are certainly very concerned, that they are tired of seeing the great shop at Weybridge B.A.C. works filled with empty jigs on which no work is going on? Is he further aware that they believe that this is adding to the cost, and that time is being lost? Will he not at least stimulate production?

Mr. Dell: As I say, there is no delay whatever in the production of these aircraft. It does not help the situation very much for the hon. Member to suggest that there is.

Mr. Brooks: In view of the pronounced reluctance of the contractors to contribute either to the development or production costs of this aircraft, could my hon. Friend assure the House that this reluctance will be reflected in profit margins permitted?

Mr. Dell: I am not able to say on what terms production finance will be provided until the negotiations are concluded.

Data Transmission Techniques

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what research and development work he is sponsoring in connection


with data transmission techniques and the establishment of a computer grid; and what is the rôle of the Computer Centre at Manchester in this field.

Dr. Bray: The National Physical Laboratory is studying the data transmission needs of computers connected by a communications grid. The Department is also supporting the development of a multi-access computing system at Edinburgh University, which will contribute information needed in the design of information computer grids and data transmission facilities. The Department is working closely with the Post Office, which is actively engaged in this and allied fields. The National Computing Centre will be concerned with the development of application software needed in the operation of a computer grid.

Mr. Osborn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the techniques for fast data transmission will be developed to fit in with the Bill recently passed through this House?

Dr. Bray: Yes. My reply gives clear evidence that this is being attacked from many different points of view, and the different workers involved are closely in touch with each other.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has the Department any evidence that the absence of any industrial development grants for the sort of peripheral equipment needed to make use of a computer service bureau is likely to inhibit the development of these very valuable techniques?

Dr. Bray: I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend in a position to inform the House of any urogress made in this direction by the nationalised industries? In particular can he tell the House of any development concerning the National Steel Corporation?

Dr. Bray: The Post Office will be a major nationalised industry, and is the prime operator in this area. I have no information regarding activities of the National Steel Corporation in this connection.

Hovertrain

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what has been the outcome of his consultations with the Minister of Transport on the proposals of the National Research and Development Corporation to develop the hovertrain; whether Hovertrack Limited is to be set up; and what is to be the capital of the company.

Mr. Benn: I hope to be able to make an announcement about this proposal shortly.

Mr. Osborn: Is the Minister aware that we get the impression that he has been dragging his feet? It is three months since we had a debate on this subject. This is an important matter, in which the French are making considerable progress. Will he consider Anglo-French co-operation in this matter?

Mr. Benn: The second question will not arise until we have decided the main question. I would not accept for a moment that for the last few months our work on hovercraft has been held back. This is a very large proposal, involving substantial investment in a new form of rapid transit, and it is not only reasonable but right and necessary that it should be examined with great care.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman in considering this question not allow the very successful work going on at British Railways Research Centre at Derby, on the high speed train using conventional track, to inhibit his consideration of the prospects of the hover-train principle, which many of us see coming in as the next generation after high speed trains?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those observations. Certainly one has to consider the development of all rapid transit systems, and try to see them equally, but the hovercraft principle as applied for train purposes has undoubtedly a very big potential.

Farnborough Air Show

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology what action he will take to emphasise the international aspect of


aviation development and achievement at the next and subsequent exhibitions at Farnborough.

Mr. Benn: I have discussed the arrangements for next year's Farnborough Air Show with the S.B.A.C. Exhibitors of any nationality will be able to display their aircraft provided they contain a significant proportion of British equipment.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer is welcome as far as it goes? Is it not the case, however, that this arrangement will prevent the Russians from showing any of their aircraft, and will also limit what the Americans show? Is he aware that the exhibits of both countries attracted enormous attention at the Paris Show?

Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows, S.B.A.C. broadened its criteria for admission in 1966, and is proposing to broaden it again in 1968, in the way that I have indicated. Looking beyond that, because it is too close to make any changes for next year, a number of considerations are in mind, and the ones that my hon. Friend has raised are among them. I cannot give any undertaking a, to which way the decision might go.

Mr. Emery: Would the right hon. Gentleman elucidate a little further on his phrase "… a considerable proportion of British equipment"? This is a terribly vague phrase, and it does not give the House much information. What does he mean by this? Does he mean a majority, or just the radar equipment? What is in his mind?

Mr. Benn: Is is not what is in my mind because the word was not "considerable", It was "significant". It is easier to define "significant" than "considerable" and if that gives any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I offer it to him. This is a decision for the S.B.A.C.

Industrial Efficiency

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology if he will publish the report, prepared at the request of his Department by members of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority Weapons Group, on the rôle that Government research and development establishments

could play in promoting industrial efficiency.

Mr. Benn: A report was prepared by a team including a member of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority following a quick pilot survey of the problems of small firms, mainly on a trading estate, and was not specifically directed to the rôle that establishments might play. It contains information on firms given in confidence, which cannot therefore be published.

Hovercraft (Research and Development)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to extend hovercraft research and development designed to produce fast 4,000 ton-plus hoverships for trans-ocean transport of passengers and freight.

Mr. Weatherill: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he now proposes to take to accelerate the design or production of large hoverships in excess of 1,000 tons weight.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement about Government assistance in the development of hovercraft.

Dr. Bray: My right hon. Friend recently appointed a Director of Hovercraft and announced the formation of a National Physical Laboratory Hovercraft Committee. One of its immediate tasks will be to examine the hovership proposals as part of the hovercraft research and development programme. Government support will be considered in the course of this review.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that some other countries are spending vast amounts of money on the development of hoverships of up to 5,000 tons, with the aim of carrying bulk freight across the oceans in a matter of a few hours? Will he couple hoverships with the assurances that he has given on hovertrains, so that Britain will not be left behind in this direction either?

Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend has run ahead of events. Other nations are not spending more money on larger hover-ships than we are. The SRN4 is the


biggest hovership under construction in the world.

Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister not recognise that for a Government, which three years ago promised to have Britain sweltering in the white hot heat of technological advance, it may be said that they are dragging their feet disgracefully in these matters?

Dr. Bray: On the contrary, we are skimming the waves.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As a practical step, would the Minister ensure that we go ahead with development of the 200 and 300-ton class of hovership, and will he ensure that we can get a market for these ships, because without that, they will not be worth making?

Dr. Bray: The hon. Member is right. He has taken a close interest in this and other technological developments of the fast ship. He will appreciate that the Government need to examine very closely the wide variety of possible markets for this development.

Undersea Research and Development

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to promote international co-operation on a European basis in the technology of the development of the sea-bed; and what reply he has made to the representations he has received from Dr. Wenk, President Johnson's adviser on the development of the marine environment on this subject.

Mr. Benn: There is already considerable international co-operation in many aspects of the technology of the sea-bed.
I discussed this with Dr. Wenk during his recent tour of Europe and when I was in Washington in May. Further discussions will be held.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all convinced of the good will and drive of the Government in the matter of marine science? Is it likely that by the time Dr. Wenk comes again in October there will be a clearer indication of Government intentions?

Mr. Benn: We are making good progress. This concerns a number of Departments, as my hon. Friend knows. I

would not want him to think that it is only when I meet Dr. Wenk that I give consideration to this question. A great number of subjects, from the Channel Tunnel to natural gas and a number of other aspects of seabed technology, are under active study and development, and we hope to carry this a stage further.

Sir J. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman make sure at this stage that oceanographical research study and development does not reach the same situation as did the development of outer space, due to the lack of a single Ministry in charge of the programme? Would he say which Minister will tackle this problem?

Mr. Benn: This is a quite separate question, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has got one down to me later on a related matter.

Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement indicating the effective development of technology in Scotland, the organisation and increase of staff in the Industrial Liaison Centre established at Aberdeen, the scope of its work and the industries affected by it and its plans for the future.

Mr. Dell: Action by the Ministry of Technology is contributing to the technological development of Scottish industry across a very broad front. The future of the Industrial Liaison Centre at Aberdeen is under discussion with the Scottish Education Department. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Hughes: Is not one of the aims of the Industrial Liaison Centre to increase trade, industry and commerce in Scotland? If so, will my hon. Friend specify what his plans are in that direction?

Mr. Dell: Certainly one of the objects of the Centre is to assist industry in Scotland. What we are considering is the future staffing and financing of the Centre. The Government are doing a great deal about technological development in Scottish industry, a recent example being the foundation of the Institute of Machine Tool Design.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of my hon. Friends recently saw some of the work being done by his Ministry in Scotland and were very much impressed? May we press him to continue to develop that work?

Mr. Dell: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. We have had a number of very important successes—for example, with the low-cost automation clinics al Paisley and Edinburgh.

European Economic Community

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Technology when it is intended to publish the White Paper on technology in the context of British entry to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Benn: There is no present intention to publish a White Paper on technology.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports, including reports to the House, that very detailed proposals have been put to General de Gaulle on this question? Does he not think it wrong that the House should take second place to General de Gaulle in a matter of this kind?

Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. One of the most powerful arguments for deciding to apply to enter Europe was that advanced technology depends on the scale on which we operate. This is a matter which is very closely linked to industrial collaboration and the search for markets referred to earlier. These are not matters which ate suitable for publication in a White Paper of the kind published on agricultural policy.

Mr. David Price: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in pursuance of his argument on the concept of the minimum critical mass, that there is little hope for a technological community outside a political and economic infrastructure?

Mr. Benn: Although it is tempting to follow the hon. Gentleman's question with an interesting answer, I do not think that I will go further than I have gone.

Hawker Siddeley and B.A.C.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Technoloy what action he now proposes to take to bring about the merger between

the airframe and missile interests of Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation.

Mr. Benn: Negotiations with the two companies are proceeding. Discussion of the future of the companies guided weapon interests forms part of these negotiations.

Mr. Barnett: I assume that my right hon. Friend agrees that a merger is essential. As it has been clearly shown that the pricing system is, to say the least, difficult, would he not consider it worth while looking into the advice given to him by the admittedly very Left-wing magazine the Economist that we might take this industry into public ownership?

Mr. Benn: There has been a lot of public discussion over the years about what should be done with the aircraft industry. The Government announced their decision last year. While the negotiations are in progress, I think that it would be wrong for me to say more.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I appreciate that these matters take a very long time to negotiate, but is the Minister aware that the long delay has a very unsettling effect on the staff and scientists whom we want to retain in this country? Unless he does something to assure them about their future, we shall lose more than ever.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is the programme of work rather than the pattern of ownership which decides the matters to which he refers. In negotiations of this kind there are, by definition, three parties, and delay is not always attributable to one.

Mr. R. Carr: Since the right hon. Gentleman has just said, so truly, that it is the programme of work which matters, are negotiations being suspended until the Government know what they are going to make?

Mr. Benn: That is a separate question. I understand that there is to be a debate on the matter later this week. I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman says arises on this Question.

Space Efforts (Government Support)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the apportionment of Governmental support


as between Great Britain's scientific and commercial space efforts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: This is a matter for the Government as a whole to decide and I am satisfied with the apportionment made.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing feeling that not enough encouragement is being given to the commercial aspect of space and that it is from the commercial aspect that the real dividends will be paid to the people of this country? Would it not be better if we had one Minister in charge of space?

Mr. Benn: The difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, short though it was, it internally contradicted itself. If it is the commercial aspect which matters, obviously the Post Office, which is a user of the satellites, should have a very large part to play in the development of Government policy; and similarly defence and other users should as well. This is the difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's argument—that if we attach it to the users of space this operates against the idea of a central Minister, exactly as we do not have a Minister in charge of land, in charge of the sea, or in charge of the sea bed.

Computers

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will name the computer manufacturing companies with which he has discussed, and from which he has obtained, tenders for the construction of a third generation large computer; and whether he will give details of any contracts which have been placed by his department.

Mr. Benn: My Department has had discussions with several computer manufacturers about their plans for large machines. So far I have not invited tenders or placed contracts for such machines.

Mr. Lloyd: Would not the Minister agree that it is time that some accelerated effort was put into this project? Could he give the House some idea of what is in the Government's mind on the technical configuration of this computer? Is it to

be a scientific machine, a commercial machine or possibly a machine orientated to the Government's own data processing services?

Mr. Benn: A great deal of work is going on on this problem, although it is not absolutely clear whether the phrase "third generation computers" refers to the present generation, integrated circuit computers or the next generation after that. But in view of the discussions going on with the firms, I would rather not say more about that, although we shall be making further statements about this before very long.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are existing computers which will be satisfactory in implementing the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill? In dealing with the third generation of micro circuits, what acceleration is the right hon. Gentleman giving to the programme to make the idea behind that Bill operative and make them function properly?

Mr. Benn: As I was involved with that Bill before I transferred to my present Department, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that point was very carefully looked at.

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that the need for a universal general purpose computer language capable of handling both scientific and commercial programming has been established; and what measures his Department will take to ensure its proper development.

Mr. Benn: Contracts are being negotiated with computer companies for a study, jointly with the National Physical Laboratory, of this matter.

Mr. Price: In dealing with this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need not only to try to get common standards in this country, but to try to get them on an international basis? This will be essential both for our export effort and for making general sense to the users of computers.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that. I wholly support it. International standards in these and other matters are essential if we are


to make the most of technology, particularly in this direction, where a cybernetic Tower of Babel would be the least justified of all.

Uranium-235

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the current use of British research into the centrifugal method of separating U-235.

Dr. Bray: Though the Atomic Energy Authority has devoted some effort to the investigation of this possibility, it is too early to make a statement.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the persistent rumours that the Chinese have perfected a cheap and reliable method of preparing the fissile material necessary for thermo-nuclear explosions? In the light of the implications of this for nuclear proliferation and the cost of our own programme, could not my hon. Friend prosecute this research more urgently?

Dr. Bray: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I can only repeat that I am not in a position to make a statement.

Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the scope of the French technological contribution to the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.

Mr. Benn: The French technological contribution to the AFVG up to the time of their withdrawal centred on the M45 engine for the aircraft, on the design of which the French firm SNECMA was in the lead.

Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that many of us are curious about the extent of the exchange of information which took place between the British and French interests on this matter? May we assured that the French have not gained our trade secrets on the cheap?

Mr. Benn: Inevitably when one aims for collaboration and to develop collaboration, even in the early stages there will be an exchange of information. If one undertakes this type of project, one

must expect that this collaboration will be mutually beneficial.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Russians seem already to be flying a swing-wing aircraft, would it not be better to open negotiations with them?

Mr. Benn: Like my hon. Friend, I was very amused by the attitude of the Morning Star to the swing-wing aircraft once it discovered that one already existed in the Soviet Union.

Departmental Report

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology whether he has yet decided to present an annual report of his Department's affairs to Parliament.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The amalgamation with the Ministry of Aviation has raised new factors which I want to consider further.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago, when I asked a similar Question, he said that he would consider the matter sympathetically? In the light of the amalgamation with aviation, would he consider producing a report at least on the non-aviation side? I realise that aviation is a rather separate question, but a report would be of benefit to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Benn: I am still attracted by the idea, but all our establishments, including the Atomic Energy Authority and the N.R.D.C., publish annual reports. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his last Question, we have published "New Technology" which conveys regularly information about what is happening. I have also to consider the load on the Civil Service in requiring it to publish another annual report. For these reasons, I have not yet been able to reach a firm decision.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree that we have absolutely no instrument which collates Government policy and which gives their attitude towards the various projects which are being dealt with by bodies like the N.R.D.C. There is nothing by which the public can be thoroughly informed of the Minister's policy. Leaving aviation out of it, surely my hon. Friend is right about that.

Mr. Benn: I did not answer the specific question about the non-aviation side, but the way in which the new Ministry of Technology is growing will ultimately blur the old differences which divided the two Departments. There is an internal integration which is growing in the Department, and that was intended. Other agencies like the A.E.A. and the N.R.D.C. are co-ordinated, and they are part of my responsibility.

Research Establishment (Northern Region)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for the siting of a Government civil research establishment in the Northern Region; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: There is no present national requirement for a new Government civil research establishment. Were another to be required the claims of development areas would be given special consideration.

Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory answer for the Northern Region, that we are the only region without such facilities, that we are taking more than our fair share of the economic ills of the country and that we consider that the provision of such an establishment is long overdue?

Mr. Dell: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed, but we cannot establish a new civil research establishment merely to put one in the North-East. I suggest that perhaps a better way of thinking about the problem would be if industry in the North-East approached the Ministry of Technology with schemes for research and development with which we could assist. That would certainly assist my hon. Friend's object more rapidly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not my hon. Friend aware that private research establishments in the North-East have been pressing this line for Government support for some time and have justice in their claim that they have not had all the good will that they could reasonably have expected?

Mr. Dell: If my hon. Friend is referring to a certain research establishment in the North-East, I assure him that we are doing everything we can to give

that organisation research contracts and that we have had some success.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Minister bear in mind that we keep on asking for things for the North-East, such as for notice to be taken of the port of the Tyne, but that we were greeted with very frosty responses? Am I to take the Minister's charm towards his hon. Friends as meaning that the Government will now change their views and will help us on the North-East with regard to the Tyne?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Lady will, I think, agree that we are helping the Tyne a great deal. One of her particular interests—for example, Tyne shipbuilding— is likely to gain very great assistance from the recent passing of the Shipbuilding Industry Act.

European Airbus

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the European airbus.

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Technology whether he has now received the report on the work by the industrial consortium in connection with the production of a design for a European Airbus based on two Rolls-Royce RB207 engines.

Mr. Benn: On 25th July, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting Ministers from France and Federal Germany to decide future action in the light of the report which the industrial consortium has just submitted.

Mr. Hastings: What precise steps will the Minister take to ensure that the disaster which befell the AFVG is not repeated in this project? How will he tie up the contract?

Mr. Benn: It is of the nature of international collaboration that one cannot tie up international colleagues absolutely firmly. We are, however, optimistic about the airbus discussions and we have insisted that the RB207, the European engine, will be part of it.

Mr. Carr: Does not the Minister realise, even now, the dangers which he is running on the country's behalf? Will he not look backwards on the Concord agreement and say whether, in the light


of the hindsight which he now has, we were not wise to make that sort of agreement?

Mr. Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman were to look back at the aviation past of his own colleagues, he would find very little to help us in the problems which we have to face.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend accept our best wishes for 25th July? Is it roughly correct to say that if the project comes off, it will keep 10,000 people in the aircraft industry employed for roughly four years? Are these figures approximately correct?

Mr. Benn: I do not know the exact figures offhand. It depends on the market. The important thing about this and every project which we now take on should be that we are sure that the market is available for the aircraft in question.

Mr. Lubbock: Have the French and Germans accepted our insistence that the P B207 twin-engine configuration should be selected for this project? Can the Minister assure the House that a further statement will be made before the House rises for the Recess about the results of the meeting on 25th July?

Mr. Benn: I cannot say very much about the French and German position until after the meeting on 25th July. On the assumption, however, that the House is still sitting when the meeting has been completed, I see no reason why we should not be able to make a further statement if it is required.

Air Freight Traffic

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made of the likely expansion of air freight traffic; and what encouragement he will give to the British aviation industry to compete in this field.

Mr. Dell: The forward projections of air freight traffic indicate a rapid increase and I shall welcome proposals from the industry designed to secure its proper share of the business that will be gerated by it.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that in the last three years this traffic has increased by no less than 20, 27 and 18

per cent., respectively? Is not this very good business indeed? Does the Minister's statement indicate that he is prepared to support a project for an air freight aircraft, which we would have had if the Government had not cancelled the Hawker Siddeley 681?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that air freight has been increasingly rapidly over recent years, but the Government's primary rôle in this matter is to give launching aids to promising civil developments. No proposal has recently been received from the industry for Government assistance in launching a new civil freight aircraft.

Industrial Modernisation

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology what further powers he will be seeking to assist in the modernisation of industry.

Mr. Benn: My Department was set up to establish a sound working partnership with industry. If this were to necessitate further powers I should have to seek them.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that technical mergers of the kind which we have recently seen between English-Electric and Elliot Automation need to be increased and that there seems to be a gap between the encouragement offered by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the power which my right hon. Friend possesses? Can he suggest how he can close this gap?

Mr. Benn: The I.R.C. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. As to the rôle of the Ministry of Technology in mergers, we are, of course, engaged in major discussions involving the aircraft industry, on the one hand, and, in the case of shipbuilding, by the use of an industrial board for the purpose. I said in the debate on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill that I thought that the development of a board for that sort of purpose might prove to be interesting.

British Graduates (North America)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has to co-operate with the director general of the National Economic Development Council to recruit British graduates now working in North America.

Mr. Dell: The Ministry already maintains close contact with the National Economic Development Office in these matters.

Mr. Biffen: Since a recent Parliamentary Answer revealed that, so far, Mr. Fred Catherwood had been unable to recruit one graduate to come back from North America to work for the National Economic Development Office, can the hon. Gentleman say whether, as a result of this co-operation, he has had from Mr. Catherwood any indication of why he considers that his mission was so singularly lacking in success?

Mr. Dell: There is no evidence yet that Mr. Catherwood's mission has failed. Mr. Catherwood is responsible for his own missions to recruit his own staff in Northern America if he considers that the right thing to do. Certainly, if the National Economic Development Office would like to use the channel which we have recently set up through M.S.L., we would be delighted.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress of grouping arrangements in the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Dell: Four Tyne companies have announced their intention of merging their shipbuilding activities on this river. Working parties are studying the organisation on the Upper Clyde and Wear, the first covering six yards and the second five yards. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been and is cooperating with the firms concerned as well as with others who are still conducting confidential discussions about mergers.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In welcoming the lead given on the Tyne in making use of the valuable proposals contained in the Government's Shipbuilding Industry Act, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he can say anything about the marine engine industry in particular as part of the grouping facilities and whether any statement can now be made about it?

Mr. Dell: I certainly welcome the lead which has been given by the Tyne shipbuilders in the matter of grouping. The question of marine engines is under consideration by the Shipbuilding Industry

Board and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent report has disclosed that the Japanese shipbuilding industry, which has been building ships of 150,000 to 200,000 tons, is now expecting to have surplus capacity in this range fairly soon, and has initiated work on new yards to build ships in the 500,000-ton range? Is he going to make ure that we do not join the wrong race?

Mr. Dell: Certainly it is of the utmost importance that we have a shipbuilding industry which knows the market it is concentrating on, and that it concentrates on that market. This is one of the objects of regrouping, that the industry will be able to make marketing arrangements which can make decisions about exactly that sort of problem.

Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend indicate to the House what progress has been made with regard to grouping the shipyards on the north-west coast, particularly in relation to Cammell Laird and Vickers?

Mr. Dell: Grouping of shipyards on the north-west coast is not a matter of high priority, although one would expect that in the second stage of development that, too, will be an area in which groupings are likely.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the progress on Clydeside? Is he aware of the concern on Clydeside that the very valuable work being done among the upper reaches firms may preclude the possibility of mergers along both the upper and lower reaches?

Mr. Dell: I would personally hope that it would not preclude it, but with any of these groupings it may be necessary to have two stages of development. I do not think myself that the grouping of firms on the upper Clyde, for example, or of firms on the lower Clyde would later preclude a group for the whole of that area.

Variable Geometry Aircraft (United Kingdom)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for the development in the United Kingdom of variable geometry aircraft.

Mr. Benn: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 5th July.—[vol. 749, c. 1825–1834.]

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware of the considerable public concern that this British invention, brought to an operational state by the United States, by France and by the Soviet Union, has made apparently absolutely no progress in this country? Will he assure the House we are not going to be left behind in this race?

Mr. Benn: I am aware of the considerations which the hon. Member mentions. We are to debate this very fully on Thursday. Meanwhile, there is nothing further I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said.

Aircraft Construction Industry

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what aircraft will be the core of the British aircraft construction industry in the 1970s.

Mr. Benn: A wide range of civil and military aircraft will be under construction in the 1970s. It would be difficult to single out any one of them for special mention.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister recall that on 30th November, 1966, the then Minister of Aviation said, when asked what would happen if the AFVG project failed, that the Government were well advanced with contingency planning and that an announcement would be made also immediately if the project failed. Would he now give the House a technological definition of "almost immediately?"

Mr. Benn: 5th July is not very long ago, and Thursday is the day after tomorrow. If that does not do for the hon. Gentleman, I do not know what will satisfy him.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister really think there is no connection between AFVG cancellation and the existence of the Dassault Mirage 3G?

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend made a statement on this point, referring to what M. Messmer had said to him, and

we shall have a full opportunity of discussing this. It is certainly not for me to comment.

Mr. R. Carr: But does the right hon. Gentleman's answer a moment ago, referring to all the other work being undertaken, and which has been going on for some years, mean that the Government think a core is no longer needed for this apple?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that I can do better than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the various projects which are to be developed in the 'seventies. This is what the Question is about. The percentage of work, for different aircraft, I am prepared to give to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman wants it, but on the civil side, of course, the largest project is Concord.

Short Bros. and Harland

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Technology how many people were informed of his decision to terminate the services of the chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, before the chairman himself was informed.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology what decision he has made concerning the appointment of a successor to the present chairman of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Technology if he will announce the name of the new chairman of Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the progress made on the reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. Orme: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the future policy of Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with the reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. Benn: With permission, I shall answer Question No. 33, together with Questions Nos. 35, 37, 38, 41, and 45, at the end of Question Time.

Magnetic Compasses

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Technology what research is being undertaken to establish the degree of distortion in the reading of magnetic compasses resulting from ferrous deposits in the ground.

Mr. Dell: No such research is being undertaken by the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If it appears that this was a contributory factor to at least one of the accidents—at Perpignan—would the Minister have an investigation in order to see that unnecessary navigational accidents of this kind do not recur?

Mr. Dell: If the inquiry which is going on into that accident reveals that this was the cause, then that will create a new situation which will have to be considered.

Computer Technology

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Technology why National Research Development Corporation support is being withheld from the company, Computer Technology.

Dr. Bray: I understand that N.R.D.C. did not feel able to support a particular proposal put to them by Computer Technology. The firm has no manufacturing capabality, and the Department has suggested to Computer Technology that the best course might be to seek an association with a well-established computer manufacturer.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that this project has been assessed by a private firm of consultants, Cambridge Consultants, and that some people are gravely concerned that the money going into computers is going into the big companies and no support is being given to the small ones and that we are very disturbed that Parliamentary accountability is not given to N.R.D.C.? Can we have a debate on this?

Dr. Bray: N.R.D.C. gives a very full report of all its activities and is very ready to answer questions directly regarding them. In computer manufacture there

is advantage in scale. We have encouraged this firm to get in touch with well-established computer manufacturers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will now invite the Heads of Government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to a conference to discuss new methods of collectivising their nuclear defences.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No. Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friends have told the House that the terms on which our Polaris submarines are to be assigned to N.A.T.O., like the terms for the V bombers, will permit their withdrawal? Will the Prime Minister confirm that this degree of internationalisation was intended by the pledges in the last two Labour Party election manifestos?

The Prime Minister: I think a valuable step has been made with the report of the McNamara Committee. As to further internationalisation where Polaris is concerned, this will have to be the next subject for discussion, but I think there is nothing very urgent about it, nor very much desire in N.A.T.O. at this time to consider it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Prime Minister stand by the previous declaration that there should be no German finger, direct or indirect, on the nuclear trigger? Does not the printed Question, as supported by Mr. Strauss, conflict with that vital declaration?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any West German statement which is in any sense contrary to the doctrine that countries which are not at present nuclear Powers should not seek to become nuclear Powers. This has been very clearly stated by the West German Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (H-BOMB)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consequences of the explosion of an H-bomb by Communist China


in relation to the search for agreement on a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take in order to get agreement on a non-proliferation treaty, in view of the recent explosion of a nuclear device by China.

The Prime Minister: We regret the continued Chinese atmospheric tests, which underline both the dangers of proliferation and the urgent need for a nonproliferation treaty. I am sure that our best course is to persevere with the effort to get an agreed treaty on the table at Geneva as soon as possible.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the explosion of China's H-bomb makes the maintenance of world peace immeasurably more precarious? Can he say what consultations have taken place between the Government and Commonwealth countries such as India and Australia on the implications of this development?

The Prime Minister: I have had discussions myself with the Prime Minister of Australia. With regard to consultations with India and other Commonwealth countries, this is one of the most important questions lending urgency to the Geneva Conference. We are in close touch with the Indian Government, both bilaterally and at the Geneva Conference.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my right hon. Friend not think he should now be arousing world opinion and putting pressure on the President of the United States to ensure that China is admitted to the United Nations in pursuance of Labour Party policy? Further, will he make it crystal clear to all our European allies that in no circumstances will we tolerate any opposition under the pretext of signing a non-proliferation treaty?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, we have consistently done everything in our power to get recognition of China's right to sit at the United Nations table. In my speech to the General Assembly, and in the speech by my right hon. Friend also to the General Assembly last year, we pressed this point, both of us, very strongly indeed. So far as nonproliferation is concerned, I have nothing to add to previous answers, but I think

that I have made it clear to the House how very desirable it is to get a nonproliferation agreement signed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apparent instability of the Peking Government, this does not take on a very serious complication, and whether some effort should be made to act on the lines suggested by the original Question?

The Prime Minister: One does not need to indulge in speculation about the internal situation in China to be well aware of the tremendous dangers of proliferation by other countries fearing that they might be threatened and seeking to become nuclear Powers themselves. That provides sufficient urgency without further discussions about it. The answer must be sought at Geneva and, when China is in the United Nations, there as well.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the changed world situation created by China in testing of the hydrogen bomb, he will now seek to convene a summit meeting of world leaders to discuss disarmament.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We continue to believe that the best way to make progress towards our arms control and disarmament objectives is to persevere in the present negotiations, in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Prime Minister agree with me that one of the greatest threats to world peace is the isolation of the Chinese leadership, accentuated particularly by the attitude of the Americans at the United Nations? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what active steps the Government have in mind to integrate China with the community of nations?

The Prime Minister: I would not under-rate the difficulties presented by the challenge in the last few words of my hon. Friend's question. As for bringing China into her rightful place in the United Nations, my right hon. Friend and I—indeed, all of us—have pressed at successive Assembly meetings for China to be seated. We have spoken, pressed, organised and voted to that


effect. However, there is not yet a majority in favour of China's admittance. It is not a case of just one country being against it.

Mr. Longden: Since, in spite of the efforts of the present Administration and the previous one, China is not a member of the United Nations, how can the Prime Minister think that she will take any notice of any agreement which lays on the table at Geneva?

The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I think that the first step is to get the non-proliferation agreement settled. This, after all, will provide some guarantee against other nations feeling that they must themselves become nuclear Powers in order to face any threat which may come from China. The second matter is to get China into the United Nations, and then the problem can be transferred to the United Nations forum for settlement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since the first nuclear bomb in history was dropped by white men on yellow men, is it not one of the most colossal pieces of impertinence and hypocrisy for the white people to reprove the Chinese before doing something themselves by chucking away their own weapons?

The Prime Minister: While not associating myself with those words, it is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and this is what we are working for—not only to stop proliferation among other non-nuclear Powers but to get progressive nuclear disarmament by those who have nuclear weapons at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the talks between Lord Alport and representatives of the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister what report he has had from Lord Alport in the matter of the Rhodesian problem; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have at present nothing to add to the Answers I gave to

Questions on this subject on the 6th of July.—[Vol. 749, c. 1987.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister in a position to assess the worth of the claim that those who hold the real power in Rhodesia at the moment really want genuine negotiations on the basis of a return to constitutional rule? Further, can he explain in rather more detail than he did at the time the remark which he made on 13th June as to the need for a substantial change in the circumstances before the concept of N.I.B.M.A.R. was either abandoned or modified by Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make an assessment of the strength of the desire on the part of various interests in Rhodesia for meaningful talks. Ideas were put forward in the House about this. We had varying reports about how far they were willing to engage in meaningful discussions and, of course, that was the purpose of Lord Alport's visit. Until he comes back, it is not possible to answer this question.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that Lord Alport will return at the weekend, and, if it be so, may we hope for a statement from the Government next week?

The Prime Minister: I think that his present plans involve a return either at the weekend or early next week. As soon as my right hon. Friend and I have heard from him and considered what he tells us. I hope that we can make a full statement in the House.

Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister have it in mind to publish a White Paper setting out Lord Alport's conclusions? If a Minister had gone, of course, he would naturally have come to the House to say what his conclusions were. What does the Prime Minister propose in this case?

The Prime Minister: We had better consider this when Lord Alport returns. Certainly it will be the intention of either my right hon. Friend or myself to make a statement in the House about the Government's position based on what we have been able to learn.

Mr. Whitaker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the members of the Commonwealth, including not only the black countries but also, in particular, Canada,


are unanimous that N.I.B.M.A.R. must be adhered to?

The Prime Minister: So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, its position was clearly and unequivocally stated by every Commonwealth country at the last Commonwealth Conference.

Mr. Sandys: Does not the tragic racial conflict in Nigeria, which is rapidly going the way of the Congo, emphasise the danger of trying to force the pace of African political advance in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in the feeling which the whole House has about the tragedy that has overcome Nigeria. Of course, the Nigerians' step forward to self-government, which was some years ago, and the very real progress which they made, was taken with the desire of the whole House by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. But I think that it would be dangerous to draw too many analogies between that country and any others. The big tragedy of Rhodesia is that, over all the years, Africans have not been given a steady progress towards greater participation in government and, of course, what steps were made in 1961 have not been adequately honoured and have not been followed up by the régime.

Mr. Rowland: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with the President of Zambia prior to the despatch of Lord Alport to Rhodesia; and what steps he is taking to keep him it formed of the results of the visit.

The Prime Minister: No other Governments were consulted over Lord Alport's visit; but steps were taken to inform those Commonwealth Governments chiefly concerned—including Zambia—before the announcement of the visit. Her Majesty's Government will of course continue to keep in close touch with our Commonwealth partners over Rhodesia.

Mr. Rowland: Can the Prime Minister say why no special consultations and special steps have been taken to keep informed the other Commonwealth country which is most directly concerned with the Rhodesia situation? Can he explain why there now seems to be a real lack of imaginative understanding by the

British Government of the strains and problems facing President Kaunda?

The Prime Minister: There is no lack of understanding about the strains and problems facing President Kaunda. We have shown that very many times, not least by the remarkable economic assistance that this country has provided to Zambia, and I very much regret that he did not feel able to come to the Commonwealth Conference last year. So far as consultation is concerned, it has been part of the Zambian case against us that they regard Rhodesia as a purely British problem, and they condemn us for not settling it in the way in which they feel it ought to be settled, namely, by the use of force. This is still the Zambian feeling and the reason why we have had these disagreements with them. President Kaunda was just leaving for China on the day that the announcement was made in the House, and steps were taken to see that the message reached him before he left.

Mr. Thorpe: In view of the fact that President Kaunda has alleged that the initiation of the "Tiger" talks and the dispatch of the Alport mission were first heard by him on British broadcasts of news, does the Prime Minister not think that there is some scope for the improvement of communications between the two countries?

The Prime Minister: There was one occasion about which he heard on the radio—I forget at the moment which one it was—and he and I had some communication about that later. In this case, I was particularly anxious that he should hear about it direct through the diplomatic channel. I understood that he had left for the airport, so we went to some lengths to see that the message reached him before he left for China.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the political difficulties of President Kaunda and the economic difficulties of Zambia due to the prolongation of sanctions, upon the duration of which the Prime Minister misled President Kaunda?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the difficulties which Zambia face and have faced continuously, feeling as strongly as they do about the treatment of their fellow Africans in Rhodesia, are due to the


existence of an illegal régime south of the Zambesi. This is the whole cause of the difficulties. If illegal action had not been taken, and if some hon. Members did not support the continuance of that illegal action, it might have ended a long time ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what steps he will take to co-ordinate the work of the various Government Departments concerned with policy towards Aden and South Arabia.

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the work of the various Government Departments concerned with policy towards South Arabia is already well co-ordinated.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend put it to these Departments that it has become impossible for the British Government at one and the same time to suppress a Nationalist uprising and negotiate with the Nationalist leaders? Will he therefore withdraw from negotiations altogether and allow the United Nations to handle them, and accelerate our departure from Aden?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is quite wrong about this. It is the duty of the Government, as long as we have a responsibility for Aden, to deal with violence and subversion and the loss of life which results from that. This is not incompatible with seeking to get a broadly-based Government, and, as my right hon. Friend explained, this we are doing.
With regard to what my hon. Friend said about the United Nations, I welcome the fact that a representative of F.L.O.S.Y. has gone to New York to have consultations with the United Nations Mission. We shall facilitate this, and my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, on our behalf will help to try to get those talks further advanced.

SHORT BROS. & HARLAND

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I will, with permission, now answer Question Nos. 33, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 45.
As the House knows, Shorts has been through some difficult years. After close and detailed re-examination of its programme and prospects I have authorised the company to go ahead with the production of wings for the F28 and F228 aircraft and to enter into a contract with Rolls-Royce to supply pods for the RB203 engine. I have also decided, as the House was informed on 27th June, to support the continuation of the promising Skyvan aircraft.
These projects give Shorts a clear forward programme of aircraft work.
With regard to the future, while the Government cannot themselves undertake to maintain the company as designers and producers of large new aircraft, they will be prepared to consider, on the same criteria as apply to any other aircraft company, launching aid for promising projects. The company's immediate task now is to make a real financial success of its current programme.
This requires a thorough internal reorganisation designed to increase productivity. It will also require a financial reconstruction, the details of which will be worked out with the Board in consultation with the other shareholders, and announced later. Meanwhile, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government will continue to provide interim finance.
I now turn to the question of the chairmanship. The present Chairman has held the post for six years and in this time has had to deal with many problems and difficulties, including the substantial loss on the Belfast project which was started before he took up office.
As I have indicated, a major reorganisation must be carried out to put the company back on to a profitable basis. This reorganisation, which has already begun, can, I believe, best be carried through under the leadership of a new chairman. Mr. Wrangham has, therefore, tendered his resignation, but he has kindly offered to continue as Chairman until his successor takes over.
With its new programme of work, and with the reorganisation of its resources, I believe that the company can look forward to continuing to play a useful part in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not said a


word in answer to Question No. 33, which he said he would answer after Question Time? Will he now be good enough to answer it?

Mr. Benn: I decided that it was right to make a change in the chairmanship of Shorts, and since it is not customary to discuss in the House advice which a Minister takes inside his Department I thought it right not to answer it specifically.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for further substantial aircraft construction work? Will he say how many of the present 7,000 employees he expects to be employed by this company for the next two years?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the valuable work which has been done by the present Chairman, particularly in promoting sales of the Skyvan and Seacat missile? Does the right hon. Gentleman not deplore the fact that the manner of publishing this decision on the chairmanship was by way of a Chapman Pincher leak?

Mr. Benn: It was not a leak. The definition of a leak is that something inside gets outside. What appeared in the papers bore no resemblance whatsoever to what was going on inside. The report said that I had an argument with Mr. Wrangham about whether Shorts should be in the aircraft industry, and had decided to sack him. This is not the case. There was no argument with the company whatsoever about the development of Shorts within the aircraft industry, and this was not, therefore, a leak. I am glad to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Wrangham's work in the past.
I expect the productive labour force to remain at about the same level for the moment, but future employment by Shorts de lends on the company's success in making this aircraft at a competitive price and finding a place for it in the markets of the world.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the situation somewhat farcical in that the Government own 69 per cent. of the shares while the remaining 31 per cent. are worthless without the Government's financial contribution? Will it not be at least worth treating this firm in its true light, and not

as a private firm, as we are pretending to do?

Mr. Benn: The history of Government participation in Shorts is a long one. We shall have an opportunity during discussions about the financial reconstruction not only to think about it ourselves, but to discuss it with the other shareholders. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what terms of compensation have been arranged for the Chairman?

Mr. Benn: The terms and conditions of the appointment were laid down in a letter of appointment more than six years ago, and, of course, will be fulfilled completely.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend say what were the difficulties about getting the Chairman to resign his office? If these difficulties arose out of a contractual obligation between the Minister and the company, would not my right hon. Friend agree, representing as he does the majority shareholder, that arrangements should be made whereby, when a Minister asks a chairman to tender his resignation, this is obligatory, without involving either the Ministry or the company in the kind of discreditable wrangles which have gone on, caused by the Chairman of this company?

Mr. Benn: There were no difficulties at all in this sense. What happened was that a totally inaccurate story appeared in the papers. It bore no resemblance to the issues which were currently under discussion. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that in my dealings with Mr. Wrangham there have been no difficulties whatsoever about this.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those hon. Members who have had anything to do with Mr. Wrangham during his term of office have formed the highest impression of his dedication and enthusiasm, and the energy which he has put into getting Shorts back on to a profitable footing? Can the right hon. Gentleman say further how many new jobs will be created in Short Bros. by the work on the F28 wings and RB203 pods?

Mr. Benn: Future employment in the company will depend on the markets for


the aircraft in which the pods or components or wings will be placed.
As to the first part of the question, this view about Mr. Wrangham's rôle was, of course, represented to me very fully by the Board of Shorts.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that although some of us have not always agreed with the policy of Shorts as aircraft manufacturers, nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, Mr. Wrangham has done an outstanding job, against endless difficulties, in constructing the Belfast ordered by Mr. Aubrey Jones? How can the right hon. Gentleman condone the sacking of this man, or his resignation, when the entire Board of Shorts is with Mr. Wrangham?

Mr. Benn: I have given the reasons. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with them, but I have to exercise a responsibility as the representative of 69½ per cent. of the shareholders, and it seemed to me, looking at the company now, and the very substantial reorganisation which will have to be carried through, that it was right to have a new Chairman, and I stick by this.

Mr. R. Carr: May we get it clear that it was the right hon. Gentleman who asked Mr. Wrangham to resign, and not Mr. Wrangham who desired to do so?

Mr. Benn: I made it clear to Mr. Wrangham during our discussions, in exactly the same way as I have made it clear to the House, that it seemed to me that the time had come to make a change, and following this he tendered his resignation.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

NIGERIA

Mr. Tilney: Mr. Tilney (by Private Notice) asked the Commonwealth Secretary whether he will make a statement about the safety of Britons in Nigeria and British interests there following the outbreak of civil war.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): There appears to be no immediate danger to United Kingdom nationals. Those living in the area of the fighting along the northern border of Eastern Nigeria have been advised by our High Commission to move to Enuga, the eastern capital.
We are watching the situation carefully, but there is no question at this stage of advising any general evacuation of United Kingdom nationals. It is too early to say what effects the fighting will have on British commercial interests.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in Lagos on Saturday last, sought and obtained from General Gowon the assurance that the lives of British residents and the safety of British property would be safeguarded during hostilities.

Mr. Tilney: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any request for aid of any kind has been received from the Federal Government? Considering what is now at risk for all parts of Nigeria, is it, even at this twelfth hour, not possible for some Commonwealth mediation?

Mr. Bowden: As the hon. Member is probably aware, offers have been made at a number of different levels to mediate in this dispute, directly through our representation, through a number of African countries, and particularly by General Ankrah, of Ghana, but without success at this stage.
On the question of the help that may be given, we are prepared to do all we can at any given moment, but it is difficult to see what can be done now. There are now probably about 2,000 British nationals left in the Eastern region. Many women and children came out a month ago. There was contingency planning for them to be brought out in case of need.

Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend explain the position concerning The Guardian correspondent, Mr. Schwarz, who is, apparently, being held by the breakaway State of Biafra? If this is true, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely outrageous that Mr. Schwarz is having this difficulty? Can the most urgent representations be made so that he can be released within the next few days?

Mr. Bowden: Mr. Schwarz was arrested on 5th July by the Eastern secessionist group when crossing the Niger. Representations have been made on his behalf by our High Commissioner, so far without success.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate what may be the fate of British subjects in Eastern Nigeria if we were to intervene in some way on behalf of the Federal Government?

Mr. Bowden: The position of British subjects in the whole of Nigeria is very much in our minds. What has to be remembered is that they are distributed over a very wide area. A month ago we advised British women and children to come out of the area, and many did so. If the remaining 2,000 want to come out at any time—400 are employed by Shell-B.P.—contingency plans have been made, and they can be brought out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
As the House will already have seen from the Order Paper, the business for today has been rearranged so that after the debate in Supply on the Care of the Elderly consideration of the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill will be resumed, followed by the Motion on the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966 (Commencement of Part II) Order.
Consideration of the Greenwich Hospital Bill is being postponed.

Mr. Heath: Would it be true to say that the Leader of the House has got into something of a muddle over business as well as over the Government's policy on prices and incomes? When the right hon. Gentleman announced the business last Thursday I warned him that it was impossible to get it yesterday. He then revised on Friday, made his notorious speech on Sunday, and issued a fresh version on Monday. As a result, the House sat for 19 hours 10 minutes and he still has not got his business.
Would it not be more sensible, instead of persisting in having an all-night sitting

tomorrow, to rearrange business for tomorrow afternoon so as to take this Bill at a sensible hour and have the Companies Bill later—which can be done perfectly well?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is putting an intolerable strain on all sections of activity in the House with morning sittings, all-day sittings and all-night sittings? We are to have another all-night sitting tonight and another on Thursday. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the strain on you, Mr. Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair, as well as upon the servants of the House and hon. Members, is rapidly becoming unreasonable?
I ask the Leader of the House not to persist in this folly, but to rearrange business sensibly and to take this Bill tomorrow.

Mr. Crossman: Naturally, I always consider carefully the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition. The House has a clear choice. A great effort is being made—and I think it can be done—to get the House up for the Summer Recess in a reasonable time. It would be possible to change our plans and to take an extra week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] That is something which we will consider. What I say to the Leader of the Opposition is that this week—because, for special reasons, we have to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through rapidly—we must abide by the business that we have decided upon.

Mr. Heath: It is plain that if the Leader of the House wishes to get the Bill through rapidly the question' of sitting into August, for another week, and extending business does not arise. It would be quite possible to take this business tomorrow afternoon and to take the Companies Bill after the Recess, if necessary. It has been through the Lords, and can be completed in the spill-over before the new Session. Why not allow the House to be sensible and take the Prices and Incomes Bill at a reasonable hour tomorrow, as I am sure most of the right hon. Gentleman's back benchers want, because most of the Amendments to the Bill are in their names?

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Member knows that if we were to do as he suggests,


and postpone business it would possibly mean having to sit a week later. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The right hon. Gentleman knows more than some back benchers about the organisation of business. Therefore, I say that on the whole, because of special reasons concerned with the Bill, we must get on and finish it as soon as possible.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that the custom of the House is changing and that on Report hon. Members are insisting on putting down and rediscussing Amendments which were fully discussed in Committee. That was done on the Agriculture Bill and on other Bills. They are making a farce of the Report stage by repeating the Committee stage all over again.

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that recently the Report stages of Bills have tended to take a long time. Nevertheless, I would have thought that that was something which hon. Members on our side were at least as responsible for, on this occasion, as hon. Members opposite.

Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the debate which is to precede tonight's all-night sitting, namely, the debate on the care of the elderly, is not without relevance to some hon. Members? Is he not sensible of the intolerable strain to which he is subjecting some of those hon. Members by insisting on their taking part in four all-night sittings this week?

Mr. Crossman: It is not a question of four all-night sittings this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is"] It is not. I am aware of the strain. I realise that we have this strain every July. This July we have a very great strain, because we are getting a great deal of business through—and we are determined to get it through.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. In view of the reflection cast upon some hon. and right hon. Members, may I say that the elderly are quite capable of taking care of themselves?

Mr. Speaker: Order. When reference was made to the elderly I did not think that it referred to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Although the right hon.Gentleman may be indifferent to public criticism of his personal reputation as Leader of the House—on the no doubt justifiable ground that it stands so low already that it cannot go lower—does not he appreciate that something much more—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be reasonably brief, with a brief preamble.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that something much more important is involved, namely, the tendency to bring all business of the House of Commons into disrepute if it is carried on in this muddled and unbusinesslike way?

Mr. Crossman: We ought to look at this summer in perspective. We have had the Finance Bill through, for instance, I think without a single all-night sitting. Before I came to the House this afternoon I looked at the list of sittings during the last year of Conservative Government, in 1963, which showed that, after June, they had 11 late-night sittings—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No morning sittings"] We are getting the facts about all-night sittings now. They had 11 late-night sittings at that time and we shall be very unlucky if we have as many as 11 this time.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever his recent successes in arranging business, many of the Government's most loyal supporters regard the arrangements for this week as quite unsatisfactory? Many, if not the majority, of us would much rather go a week into August.

Mr. Crossman: This is certainly something which we shall take into consideration in arranging business, but we must ensure that we fully understand what this implies.

Mr. Longden: Is it not a fact that one of the major objects of morning sittings was to get us to bed earlier, and that, since we began them, we have sat later and more often than ever before?

Mr. Crossman: The answer to the first part of that question is "Yes", and to the second part "No".

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of the number of hon. Members shouting at the moment a very large proportion was not here last night, and that at about one o'clock this morning, he himself noticed that only about 200 hon. Members were keeping the business of the House going, and that we are, therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a resume of last night's proceedings. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.

Mr. Leadbitter: —Is he therefore aware that hon. Members who have not been in bed since Sunday night are quite prepared to stay here, and that the Leader of the Opposition is talking humbug?

Hon. Members: Where was he?

Mr. Crossman: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says and I know that the vast majority of my hon. Friends are determined to complete our business as we planned.

Mr. Dance: What arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman made to relieve the intolerable burden of these long hours on the staff of the House of Commons in respect of this week's business?

Mr. Crossman: The arrangements being made by the Serjeant at Arms will be the same for the all-night sittings, if we have them, this week as they they were last week.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while hon. Members on this side want the Government to get their business and private Members to get theirs, there are two ways of doing this and that the way of extending this part of the Session into August might perhaps be the best way—

Hon. Members: No.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise is no help. We all have emotions about the end of term.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, although there is no unanimity on this view, it is one which he should consider, because it would have the additional advantage of enabling me to complete the passage of the Employment Agencies Bill?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of my hon. Friend's eagerness for that Bill, but I hope that he observed from the noise how impossible it would be to plan business according to the amount of disturbance made by hon. Members.

Sir T. Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an all-night sitting on Thursday night could be avoided if be would accept the excellent advice contained in Motion No. 599, supported by hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the normal Business question time, but the arrangement of business for today.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the somewhat protracted discussions on the Report stage of the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill yesterday arose partly from speculation on both sides of the House on what the right hon. Gentleman actually said on Sunday? In consideration of this evening's business, and with a view to facilitating it, will he therefore undertake to participate in the debate?

Mr. Crossman: I am, of course, aware of the interest aroused in the House by my speech at Shrewsbury, but, if the hon. Gentleman asks me whether, on the Report stage of the Bill, we can stage a debate on what I said in that speech, I can only answer that it is for Mr. Speaker to declare what is and what is not in order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have a little business ahead of us today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crossman.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Matters of the Reports of the Committee on Scottish Salmon and Trout Fisheries and the Report of the Highland Transport Board on Highland Transport Services, being matters relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

CARE OF THE ELDERLY

3.55 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I should, first of all, apologise to the House in case my voice goes at some stage in the debate. I have been unable to withstand the severity of this hot weather and have a bad cold, but I will do my best.
We are to have today an important debate on the care of the elderly. We would all accept that the mark of a civilised society lies in the contribution which it makes for its old people and that the mark of a compassionate society lies not only in the quantity but in the quality of this service. I hope, therefore, that we can discuss this problem without too much party political self-justification. What is in question is our ability to plan ahead realistically and to use our already overstretched resources to provide adequate services for a section of the community which is growing both in numbers and requirements.
In any case, this is a question in which we must all declare an interest. Whether we like it or not, we will all grow more dependent—unless some of us die in the attempt—and most of us will reach this stage at a time when our provision for the elderly and infirm is bound to be under tremendous pressure.
There are now over 6 million people in the country over the age of 65. On present expectations, a man of 60 will live another 15 years, a woman normally a good deal longer, and medical science is constantly increasing our ability to keep people alive. Between 1966 and 1986, the population is likely to increase by over 6 million, although the working population will increase by only about 800,000.
In just over 30 years, therefore, by the year 2001, the elderly population will have increased by 30 per cent. to a little over 7,500,000, yet the fact which we must face is that, during the next 10

years, the total spending on the social services will have to rise by more than 60 per cent. to keep pace with current policies. Even if—at present, it seems a very big "if"—the economy grows by 3 per cent. a year, the total national wealth will grow in the same 10-year period by less than 40 per cent.
There has also been considerable change in the post-war years in people's attitude to their elderly relatives. I am afraid that we are all much more prone to take the attitude, especially when "dad" and "mum" can no longer manage for themselves, that it is high time that they went into an old people's home, where, we tell ourselves, they will probably be much happier and much better looked after. Also, the changing pattern of society has made it more difficult for families to look after their elderly relatives. Today, there are fewer single women. The maiden aunt—I am one—is a vanishing species and it is the maiden aunt who has borne the brunt of looking after elderly people.
Society is also becoming much more mobile and volatile, with all that that means in the break-up of family ties and neighbourhood responsibilities. We must also take into account the fact that old people have, in the past, tended to set their standard of requirements very low. They have, of course, applied the yardstick of their past experience and not that of what will be the future practice and, therefore, have, on the whole, asked for far less than, possibly, modern resources would facilitate.
But more and more a society such as ours, which has lived through very rapid change and rapid social progress, will inevitably demand higher standards and far better provision for old age. By present standards, we must all admit, our provision for the elderly is proving quite inadequate, and I think that most of us would admit that the desperate need at the moment is for more money, for more staff and for more buildings.
It is against this background that we must look at what hope there is for any dramatic improvement in the years that lie ahead. The problem falls into three main groups. First, there is the provision for those who, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, must be cared for in hospital. Secondly, there is provision for those who by reason of physical or mental


frailty and family circumstances should be cared for in residential homes or in sheltered housing. Thirdly, and by far the largest group, there are those old people who, with the aid of supporting services and properly planned accommodation, are able to live independent lives in their own homes.
In the first group there are those who must be cared for in hospital. The aspect of this problem which at present is uppermost in our minds is probably that so vividly portrayed in the recent book by Mrs. Barbara Robb, "Sans Everything". A.; this book shows, all too often people are, existing in huge old-fashioned, overcrowded institutions, and that many people are in mental homes not because they are psychiatric cases, but because there is no room for them in old people's homes or in the geriatric units of general hospitals. On the other hand, some of those at present in the geriatric wards should be care for in mental homes. Many old people are enfeebled and incontinent, and the overcrowded accommodation, unsuitable buildings and staff shortages inevitably lead to intolerable conditions for both patients and nurses.
These circumstances are inevitably self-perpetuating, because bad working conditions are driving away staff, so that sometimes unsuitable and untrained staff are overworked in institutions which receive few visitors and become isolated from the rest of the community. It is in these circumstances that undoubtedly there are some cases in which old people are treated with callous inhumanity. If we turn our backs on those facts and try to pretend that they do not exist, we must bear the guilt not only of our own inhumanity, not only of the suffering of these who are being ill-treated, but, not least important, we are guilty of doing a grave disservice to the overwhelming majority of nurses and doctors, who are giving devoted and tireless service, often in impossible circumstances.
Our immediate reaction is to say, "It cannot be true". I know and appreciate the Minister's very great difficulties. In the post-war years there have been tremendous improvements in conditions in our mental homes and our institutions, and there lave been great advances in our treatment of mental illness and of age and infirmity. When I was studying for a degree in psychology I saw for myself

conditions in institutions which personally I shall never forget—conditions and forms of treatment which would be quite unthinkable today. We all recognise that this steady improvement is still gaining momentum. But what is needed is not just a plausible reassurance or an apologia but, something on which I think we all agree, determined action probably on two fronts.
First, we must face the problem of setting up the proper machinery for hearing complaints. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by Professor Brian Abel-Smith, who suggested in the book which I have mentioned a hospital commission which would be responsible for investigating complaints. This Commission could be part and parcel of the Ombudsman procedure. We on this side of the House have long thought that if there were to be a Parliamentary Commissioner he should not be debarred from investigating complaints in the hospital and health service. I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter because it is this kind of impartial investigator which is needed.
I also agree with Professor Abel-Smith that we should again consider the idea of an inspectorate. I know that we do not like the name, but we can change the name and probably find a new one. We should consider an inspectorate on the lines of the school inspectorate, which would cover both hospitals and the health and welfare service. This type of inspectorate has worked pretty smoothly in education, and I see no reason why it should not be equally valuable in health and welfare.
I have been asked to put certain questions to the Minister and I believe that my hon. Friend will repeat them. They fall into three headings. First, will the chairman have the assistance of nurses and doctors in the inquiry which the Minister is to set up? Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the people he chooses have no connection with the regions and the hospitals in respect of which the complaint is made and that there is no question of intimidation? Those are important questions which I know the Minister will be anxious to answer in winding up the debate. Secondly, we must make a much more determined effort to deal with the present


overcrowding and to cut down the long waiting lists for hospital beds.
I was glad to see that only last Thursday the Minister was urging a greater priority for geriatric beds—when he was opening a new geriatric wing. At the same time he was, as The Guardian put it on Friday, 7th July:
indulging in some sustained slapping of his own back 
in the Ministry of Health Report for 1966. No doubt we shall hear more in the same vein today and we shall be told how much better he is doing in hospital building. I hope that some of my hon. Friends will take up this theme later in the debate. The fact remains, however, that when all the costs and statistics and the plans are analysed, his hospital building programme is substantially the same as our own building programme was. Perhaps I am not being quite fair. In any case, he shakes his head. But as an article in New Society on 2nd June shows, as a result of the Minister's present programme hospital building, as a proportion of total gross fixed investment, would grow more slowly in the next five years than it did in the last three years of Conservative Government.
However we look at the figures and analyse them, the truth is—as we all know—that we should be spending more on our hospitals. At the same time, the shortage of beds and pressure on resources is being aggravated by the fact that too many old people are having to be kept in hospital and mental home beds because they have nowhere else to go. No one will deny that we need many more homes for old people who, because of physical or mental frailty or family circumstances, need to be cared for in residential homes or sheltered housing but who do not require the highly skilled nursing attention which they are getting in hospitals.
The Minister no doubt will be able to quote statistics showing rising trends of expenditure on the care and welfare of the elderly. But we all know from our constituency experience that in far too many cases there are long waiting lists, inadequate and unsuitable buildings and untrained and overworked staff.
The Report just published by the National Council of Social Service, under

the title "Caring for People," has a good deal to say about the Cinderella of the social services. This Committee, under Professor Lady Williams, which, for more than four years, has been studying the staffing of residential homes, has found that 80 per cent. of the staff in old people's homes are untrained and that the staff turnover is about one-quarter a year. This high turnover is not surprising when we find that a 70-hour week is fairly normal, a lack of personal privacy usual and salary rates little better than those of the domestic assistants who help them. We all recognise that residential care is a complex undertaking calling for people with special skill, understanding and training. Willingness and a warm heart are not in themselves a sufficient qualification—and I agree with the Report when it calls for a two-year training course and also for the provision of courses at university level.
The Report also poses another important question. Does the work for people whose circumstances require residence necessarily involve the employment of resident staff apart from the minimum of resident personnel for both safety and good care? Personally, I feel that the answer is that in most cases the staff are better to have a life away from the institution. I feel sure, also, that, as with teaching, there is considerable scope here for the employment on a part-time shift basis of married women whose children are at school all day. There is also much more scope for the use of voluntary help under the supervision of properly trained staff. Many of us know of the wonderful scheme at St. Thomas's Hospital where a great many volunteers are working under the supervision of trained staff. I think that this should be extended, particularly in our residential old people's homes.
Equally important as staff selection and training is the need for something to be done as quickly as possible about the depressing state of many of these homes. We all accept that proper care of the elderly requires a combination of tact and compassion, patience and understanding. Old people are not constantly grateful. Many of them in the homes undoubtedly feel neglected. Many even feel rejected by their families. They do not always look forward to being in a home for the rest of their lives, often a


home not of their own choosing and amongst people they have not chosen to be with.
Therefore, it is all the more important to create decent, attractive surroundings so as to ensure that old people retain self-respect and do not feel that they are being a nuisance to anyone. This is not jug a question of devoting a larger proportion of our resources for the provision of homes and staff, but also of using a great deal more thought and imagination.
In the recent report by the Building Centre Trust on its excellent exhibition, "Building for Old People" Mr. Edward Mills stated:
Few of the schemes appeared to offer potentially satisfactory social solutions to old people's needs; they were to institutional. In such homes there appears to be little provision for residents to determine how they will spend their days, and no allowance made for residents partly capable of caring for themselves to be independent if they wished.… Too many welfare authority schemes appear to be influenced by outdated conceptions of welfare … These solutions may have been aprropriate 50 years ago but they may be serious liabilities in 20 years time".
It is worth noting that some of the best schemes were those of voluntary organisations and that there is great scope for voluntary private provision to supplement provision by local authorities. In your private capacity, Mr. Speaker, you are President of a Rotary Club and will be aware of the magnificent scheme which has been got going by Southampton Rotary Club for sheltered housing, where old people have their own flatlets. This is an example of a project initiated and cart led through by local people giving their time and their skills and it is something which could well be the prototype for voluntary participation in the care of old people.
But it is difficult to estimate how far residential facilities fall short of needs. On the one hand, waiting lists are long. On the other, part at least of the need is due to roverty, poor housing and inadequate domicilary services. Professor Townsend claims that over half of those newly admitted to residential homes are capable of leading independent lives and that, for a quarter of them, loss of accommodation was the main cause of admission. It is estimated that about 90 per cent. of elderly people live in their own homes and that more than 10 per cent. of this group

is housebound because of illness or infirmity.
By far the largest part of this problem must always be concerned with those who are able to continue to lead useful lives in their own homes. Dorothy Wedderburn says in the December, 1966, Quarterly Bulletin of the National Old People's Welfare Council that her researches lead her to believe that
… we could quite easily double our expenditure on domicilary services and on other services like special sheltered housing without there being any danger of over providing.
What is the present position? The Government promised the expansion of virtually all health and welfare services and I am sure that this is what they would like to do. But as a result of last July's freeze they have brought in still more cuts in local health and welfare and amenity spending. The Daily Telegraph local government correspondent, writing on 30th December, 1966, said:
Many authorities have already had to cut back on their original development plans because of this year's squeeze. Now some projects which survived this process are having to he looked at again. Especially hard hit are such plans as those affecting old people's homes, children in care, and rehabilitation centres.
This is bound to have a serious effect on future expansion.
In the circumstances, one of our main aims must be to make the best possible use of our resources, inadequate though in many respects they are, and we are not always doing that. A report on community care cases referred by general practioners to local authorites which appeared in last month's edition of Social Work concluded that
… the line of communication between the local authority and the G.P.s certainly merits more serious examination than it has hitherto received.
The report noted the small number of cases in which the G.P. seems to refer his patients to make use of the community car services. Why is this so? Perhaps he is too busy. Perhaps he is just unaware of how he can get help.
Whatever the reasons, we must try to get this right. I think that it is partly due to the present separation of the three main branches of the services and partly to the fact that far too many doctors have still not joined group practices and as a result too many are overworked.
In fact, although we are short of doctors in proportion to our population, we are no more short of them than many other countries in Western Europe. But we need to give more encouragement to group practices and to health centres where doctors can have available all the ancillary aids to do their job. Secondly, we should move towards a Porritt solution, by which all the major branches of the services are brought under one authority on an area basis.
A recent article in the British Medical Journal argued that a unified health service should be fitted in with any reformed local government structure. I hope that both the Seebohm inquiry and the Royal Commission on Local Government have this idea very much in mind. Much can be done, also, to prevent overlapping in the local authority services. I have no doubt that the Seebohm Committee is considering the idea that there should be a social work department of the local authority to provide a wide range of social services including the provision of support and assistance to old people.
We also need to think increasingly of the need for what may be termed " day hospitals " for the elderly, where services such as physiotherapy, occupational and industrial therapy, hairdressing, chiropody and various recreational activities are available. This is the pattern at the psychogeriatric unit and Severalls Hospital, Colchester, where the majority of patients are transported to and from the hospital by the local authority ambulance services. The hospital also operates a system, I believe, whereby patients can board for a while so that their families can get a rest and go away for a holiday.
Very often it is the length of time of strain without a break or a holiday for those who are looking after old people in their own homes which forces them to allow the old people to go into care. By relieving strain on the family, many more old people could be kept in their own homes, in the community as a whole.
Sometimes, however, old people have to go to residential homes because of the sheer shortage of space in many modern houses. But in a number of cases families might be more prepared to look after their elderly relatives if they were given

some encouragement and help from the Government to do so.
For example, if a young married couple are to take in an elderly parent the house may well need conversion in some form—perhaps to provide a separate kitchenette or an additional bedroom or lavatory, or perhaps certain aids to make it easier for an elderly person to get about the house—handles for getting out of the bath, etc. But all this is expensive, and even if these people undertake the conversion themselves, one result is that their rates go up, which is hardly an encouragement. What we should seriously consider is whether we could devise a system of grants to encourage people to adapt their houses for this purpose.
That, then, is the picture. It is that of a chain reaction which begins among the 90 per cent. or so of the elderly people who should be able to stay in their own homes. Because of inadequate family and housing provisions and insufficient domiciliary health and welfare services, pressure builds up on the already overburdened residential homes for old people. At this point, shortages of money, of buildings and of staff serve to increase the pressure at the next stage, thereby aggravating the shortages of geriatric and mental accommodation. This pressure again shifts the burden on the already overstrained hospital services.
This becomes a vicious circle, but, nevertheless, we all know that great progress has been made and is being planned. Much of our provision for the elderly is first-class and many more old people are enjoying the dignity and security of good community care.
As I have said, we need more encouragement and help for those families willing to make sacrifices to look after their elderly relatives, sensible spending priorities throughout the social services in a determined drive to rid the country of antiquated old people's homes and hospitals, an end to the separation of the different branches of the health services, a proper system whereby complaints can be impartially and objectively investigated without fear or favour, and a determined drive to make full use of the vast amount of good will and compassion that exists among all sections of the community.
We all know that there is much that can be done to improve matters, and I


am sure that all in this House are anxious to see them done. We know that better research can lead to clearer understanding of the problems. Considerable savings can be made by adopting sensible spending and charging priorities, by closer coordination, and by employing a unified strategy of social security. Advances can be made by using new techniques and new methods. But, when all these things have been done, there will still remain a severe shortage of money, manpower and accommodation.
We are deluding ourselves if we imagine that we can meet the inevitably escalating demands of the future by relying on steeply rising taxation to pay the social welfare bill. This is a debt that can only be met if we have the courage and the imagination to reorganise ald reorientate our system of health and welfare provision. Professor Miller tells LB that an extra £500 million a year is needed to bring our National Health Service up to the best standards abroad.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): indicated dissent.

Miss Pike: I see that the Minister shakes his head, but, equally, I am sure that he will accept that a very large sum 431' money is needed if we are to have the sort of health service all of us in this country want.
In face of the present difficulties, the B.M.A. has decided to plan an alternative health service. Here, in Parliament, most of us on both sides of the House surely realise that the time has come to take a good hard look at the alternatives to our present system. Most of us would, I think, agree that charges on the lines advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and his allies probably offer us the best hope for attracting the essential money and resources into the National Health Service without making the burden on public expenditure intolerable.
So much for the Health Service. But what about the social welfare field? Here, increasing numbers, acceptable design and building standards and higher requirements for staff, and the selection and training of staff, will inevitably lead to greatly increased costs.

These costs can only be met if we plan to make use of what I am sure is our tremendous reservoir of voluntary participation and voluntary service.
There are already schemes in operation throughout the country that point the way to what can be achieved in this field. Hon. Members will know of schemes in their own constituencies, and other schemes in the country as a whole, but I think that very often not enough publicity is given to them. There is not enough, as it were, cross-fertilisation and knowledge of what is going on in this sphere. Every locality differs in its problems and in its opportunities. Every locality differs in its resources in terms of leadership and of people. The best must be encouraged, and the laggards must be helped. For myself, I am determined to stimulate discussion and action at local level so that local communities will be spurred on to make the effort to find the best ways of supplementing and extending the statutory provision.
Community service and good neighbourliness do not only serve to increase the quantity of the help that is given, essential though that is but, in themselves, enrich the quality of life. The dominant theme of all our policies and ideas must be care and compassion. But those are hackneyed words. Unfortunately, they have become trite, because very often we use them as pawns of our own prejudice, and sometimes as alibis for honest thought.
Care and compassion are words that have embodied different principles to different people and different generations, and if their interpretation is exhausted by one generaltion they become meaningless to the next. But with fresh attitudes of mind and new techniques of medicine and science we can charge those words with a richer, fuller meaning so that they remain the genuine expression of human aspiration at its most admirable.
Efficiency, political ideology and argument all have their place, but in this field we shall probably be judged by the quality of the care and compassion we show in dealing with this problem.

4.24 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I welcome the opportunity that this debate affords to discuss the


problems associated with the care of the elderly, and I would pay my tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for opening the debate in a way that was generally constructive and, if I may say so, unsensational.
This is a vast subject and, let us face it, it is a vast and growing problem, as the hon. Lady made clear. There is a sense in which it is almost a problem of our own creation collectively as a society, and it is also a problem that will demand more and ever more of our resources, particularly in the health and welfare services, at any rate as far as the end of this century.
It is a commonplace to repeat the statistical fact that the proportion of old people in our society has increased and will continue to increase. The advances of medical science have conquered many of the diseases which used to kill off large numbers of the population in infancy, in childhood and maturity. As a result, there has been an increase in life expectancy, though not to any very great extent measured in terms of years from birth. What is much more significant, and more relevant to our subject, is the greatly increased expectation of reaching old age.
The effects of this phenomenon can most easily be seen in any comparative study of the incidence of different kinds of disease or, indeed, of causes of death in the population as a whole today as against, say, 25 years ago. Gone, or dramatically reduced in their incidence and effect, are many of the killing diseases prevalent when I was a young man, but they have been replaced, inevitably, by the degenerative diseases of man, the diseases associated with old age. Thus, not only have we a steadily increasing proportion of the elderly in our midst, but this growing block of the population is by its very nature more in need of and makes more demands on medical health services of all kinds.
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is more than a matter of demography. Increasingly, we as a society—and I think that the hon. Lady made this point—are looking to the State, to the public authorities, to provide residential accommodation of one kind or another for our old people. It is no doubt in part due to changing

social habits, in part to our growing inability or, perhaps, unwillingness to cope within the family with our obligations to the older generation. But it is also a reflection of the improved standards we demand, and rightly demand, of institutional provision and residential care. As we raise the quality of accommodation—as, indeed, we have been doing—more old people are prepared to face the prospect of going into it, and more of us are prepared to see our parents and grandparents cared for in such an environment.
To put it simply, when we replace the grim ex-Public Assistance institution by the small and modern and friendly old people's home, designed and built to be a home in the proper sense; as we replace the cheerless, out-dated, long-stay hospital annexe with the modern geriatric unit, we ourselves stimulate the demand for such provision. The fact that everyone, whatever their social status, used to do everything in their power to avoid the stigma and misery of "ending up in the workhouse" itself acted as an effective limitation on demand.
This tragic restraint has, happily, gone, and gone for good, but it is in this sense, too, that I said at the beginning of my remarks that this vast and growing problem of caring for the elderly is largely one of our own creation. This development, let us not hesitate to assert, is to the credit of our society and of our generation. But let us not underestimate the demands it is making, and will increasingly make, on our manpower and other resources.
I should like to devote most of what I have to say to hospital provision for old people. This is, of course, only one facet of care, even if an important one, and my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will, in winding up the debate, direct more of his remarks to the community aspects of care for the elderly.
Hon. Members may recall that in 1965 I requested regional hospital boards, when reviewing their capital programmes, to give geriatric and psychiatric services what I called a due and early share of the additional resources being made available. In other words, I asked not only that boards should make certain that the proportion of available money spent on geriatrics in the next 10 years reflected realistically the importance of the care of the elderly among the many services


provided by hospitals, but that the necesry money should be provided earlier rather than later in the 10-year period. Thus, I aimed to strike as quickly as possible, a position of balance which was not, in my view, struck in the earlier Hospital Plans.
There is already some evidence of progress in this direction. In 1966, there were 59,186 geriatric and chronic sick beds. Regional hospital boards estimate that in 1970 there will be 63,048, an increase of 7 per cent., which will keep pace with the very large rise expected in the elderly population.
This increase is coming about through the provision of new geriatric units in redeveloped district general hospitals and adaptations to existing hospitals. Existing geriatric wards are also being improved. With a good deal of imagination and ingenuity some of the old institutional buildings are being almost transformed so as to make them tolerable until such time as they can all be redeveloped or replaced.
Along with improvements in physical accommodation, geriatric medicine is developing very satisfactorily in many areas. This, I am sure, will be true of all areas as soon as more geriatric physicians are forthcoming. There has already been a considerable strengthening in the medical staffing of geriatric hospital departments and units. The number of consultants specialising in geriatrics has risen by nearly 40 per cent. from 115 in 1964 to 156 in 1966. Other hospital medical staff, including medical practitioners responsible for the treatment of the elderly, have also increased in numbers.
Geriatrics as a medical specialty is evolving all the time. The modern geriatric unit, with its assessment and rehabilitation wards, is designed to enable the elderly patient to receive the correct treatment for his condition. After further treatment in the rehabilitation ward many will return to the community where, supported by the domiciliary services, they will be able to spend happy and useful years. A small minority, of course, will fail to respond to treatment and will require long-term hospital care.
The day hospital plays a very important part in rehabilitation. Day hospitals provide for the elderly sick who are in need of hospital care, but who do not require to be in-patients. The pro-

vision of day hospital facilities is increasing rapidly and it is clear that our hospital authorities are fully aware of its value. The number of attendances by elderly people at day hospitals increased from 61,450 in 1961 to 310,000 in 1966. Thus I think we can say that the concept of the elderly patient condemned, bed-ridden, to years of inactivity is fast disappearing. What one now sees more and more is the elderly person, albeit a little infirm, who with the aid of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and the help in some cases of simple appliances, can still play an active part in community life.
Geriatric medicine does not seem in the past to have been as attractive to the young doctor or nurse as most other specialties. This somewhat out-dated attitude is beginning to fade as the challenge of this specialty is more widely appreciated and this should be helped by a new development in the teaching hospital field. Most of the London undergraduate teaching hospitals have recently undertaken to provide—or propose to do so--full hospital services to their local communities, including provision for geriatric patients. This will mean that geriatric care will not only be part of an integrated hospital service, as it is elsewhere, but will benefit from the stimulus of a large teaching hospital. It will also mean that the medical students will have better opportunities to learn about the care of old people.
This will be of twofold benefit. Many of the students will become the family doctors of the future, and they will be that much more alive to the needs of their elderly patients and to the appropriate methods of meeting them. Other students will undoubtedly be attracted to this specialty and will provide the much-needed geriatricians of the future, without whom we shall be unable to make the most of many potentially excellent geriatric units. I am, incidentally, glad to note that the Royal College of Physicians has recently recognised the value of this important specialty by setting up a geriatric committee.
Similar considerations apply in geriatric nursing, which also calls for special skill. Much is being done, I am glad to say, to raise the prestige of geriatric nursing in the profession. For example, geriatric experience is being included in many of


the educational programmes for student nurses. Attitudes change as the geriatric ward is seen to be a place where there is something to be learned both in theory and in practice. There is more satisfaction to be obtained from geriatric nursing now that successful rehabilitation enables the nurse to see the practical results of her efforts.
Gone are the days when nurses did no more than tend patients who would spend the rest of their days in bed. Geriatric nursing is now looked upon as a specialty requiring extra skills rather than as routine nursing requiring less skill. Geriatric units are now among the show pieces of the Health Service. They may not always be housed in new buildings, but much has been made to upgrade the old. Several geriatric units are run on the lines of progressive patient care and can in this respect give a lead to some general acute hospitals. The transition I have described has been taking place very rapidly and geriatric services are now included in the planning of new district general hospitals, as a matter of course.
I should like to say a word about a still more recent development, the psycho-geriatric assessment unit. Medically, it is often very difficult to separate mental from physical infirmity in old age. This is one of the facts which may lead to the situation described by the hon. Lady as misplacement of patients. It is essential, therefore, to find ways of assessing that minority of patients who cannot clearly be distinguished at the outset as suffering either from a predominantly geriatric or a psychiatric condition. Such an assessment should, ideally, be conducted in the patient's own home and the initial visit of the consultant could well reveal a number of social and medical defects that could, if properly remedied, obviate the need for hospital admission. When a domiciliary assessment is not possible, or fails, then the effective alternative is assessment in a psycho-geriatric assessment unit, in a general hospital.
The psycho-geriatric assessment unit prevents misplacement of patients, with all its consequences, and leads to more effective use of geriatric and psychiatric services. Its function is to enable a more precise diagnosis to be made, to initiate

treatment, and to make the most suitable arrangements for further care when necessary.
Some patients will fail to respond to treatment started in the assessment unit and will need continuing institutional care. It may be provided, according to the patient's condition, in the wards of a psychiatric hospital, or the wards of a geriatric department, or in a residential home. Needless to say, to be effective this service calls for close links between the geriatric and psychiatric departments and between the hospitals and the local authority services.
Where both hospital and local authority services for the elderly and chronic sick are well developed there is little, if any, difficulty in ensuring that patients are cared for in the way that is best for them. But where services are deficient on either or both sides, it is inevitable that there are difficulties such as misplacement, blockage of hospital or welfare beds, waiting lists to both hospital and residential accommodation and delays over urgent cases which need transfer. My Department gave fresh guidance on the care of the elderly in hospitals and residential homes in a memorandum issued in September, 1965. It contained a section on joint planning and operation and emphasised that although the various health and welfare services for the elderly were not administered by one authority, their purpose was to provide what is essentially a single service for each individual needing it.
In most areas, hospitals, local authorities and general practitioners are making great efforts to establish on a firm basis that co-operation which is so essential for this purpose. One of the fruits which can be derived from this co-operation is the joint appointment of a geriatri, physician with his main responsibility in the hospital service, but with some of his duties lying in the local authority field. Extension of this area of co-operation should ensure that in future there can be less opportunity for any breaks in the continuity of care between the hospital and the local authority services. One doctor will be in a position to judge the possibilities of both services and to ensure, as far as physical facilities allow, that the most appropriate form of treatment and care


is offered to elderly people at the time when they need it.
Although I have spoken at some length about modern hospital care for the elderly, the first objective of our complex of services for old people is, of course, to keep them out of hospital if possible and for as long as possible. Services in the community provided by local help and welfare authorities are themselves every bit as important. As I said, my right hon. Friend will say something about this in winding up the debate, but I should like meanwhile to say a word about residential accommodation in the community, the parallel provision, so to speak, to the hospital geriatric unit.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to refer to the "Sans Everything" issue, which has arisen so recently?

Mr. Robinson: I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for very much longer.
There has been a dramatic advance in recent years in both quantity and quality or residential accommodation which is not sufficiently known and appreciated. For example, during the last 20 years local authorities have provided 1,764 homes, of which 724 were purpose-built. Despite the limitations which had to be placed on the total loan sanctions in 1965, 130 new homes were opened in 1966, providing for nearly 5,800 residents, compared with 106 for only 5,000 people the year before and with 87 for 4,300 people in the last four years of government by the Party opposite. Local authorities were providing a total of 93,000 places for elderly people in March, 1965, and they plan to provide 152,000 by 1976.
These net figures do not wholly reflect the size of programme required, since, to their great credit, all but a few authorities plan to get rid of their remaining accommodation in old workhouses and other over-large and obsolescent buildings in which good welfare is difficult and often impossible. Replacement of this obsolete accommodation requires building for up to 20,000 more old people, but I am hopeful that the whole of the programme—both expansion and replacement—can be realised.
I have sometimes, however, to ask those authorities who are relatively well

provided to hold back as patiently as they can while leeway is made up elsewhere, where the need is more clamant. We must recognise that replacement of outworn buildings is essential, if all those who spend their last years in residential homes are to do so decently. As I said in reply to a Parliamentary Question yesterday, I shall, for my part, not be content till all the old Public Assistance institutions are gone.
The part of the general practitioner in the care of the elderly is, of course, vital, and I should perhaps mention that the new scheme of remuneration for general practitioners now provides a higher capitation fee for patients over age 65–28s. a year instead of the normal 20s. in recognition of the additional medical care which may be necessary for the elderly. Furthermore, the strong incentives which we have introduced to form group practices or to practice in health centres and to employ supporting ancillary staff will do much to improve general practitioner care of the elderly.
However we improve our organisational arrangements—and I think that I have shown that we have done much in the last year or two—what matters, above all, is that our old people, under whatever form of care they find themselves, should be treated at all times with kindness and sympathetic understanding. The hon. Lady used the words "care and compassion". I have no doubt whatever that in general they are. The quality and dedication of our nurses is as high as can be found anywhere in the world.
I believe that the House would assent to this, and accept that nursing old people, many of whom are incontinent and confused, is one of the heaviest tasks the nurse can be asked to undertake. Hon. Members will, therefore, wish to put into perspective the sort of allegations of ill-treatment and gross neglect of elderly patients at the hands of nurses, which have received such eager publicity in the last few weeks.
These allegations, contained in a book called "Sans Everything", are for the most part made pseudonymously. I have made it clear in the House, in answer to Questions, and my Department has made it clear to the Press and to the editor of the book, that any specific complaint or evidence put forward in a way


which makes inquiry possible would be investigated, and searchingly investigated; but that general unsubstantiated allegations cast unfair suspicion on large numbers of hospital staff who devote themselves to the care of elderly patients, and can only cause distress to patients' relatives.
I therefore wrote to AEGIS when I had seen the book, expressing the hope that, on reconsideration, they would agree to make available to me the identity of the complainants and the patients and staff involved, so that a full inquiry could be held; and that if they remained unwilling to do that, they would at least inform me in confidence of the identity of the hospitals. This would not enable full inquiries to be made into the allegations of ill-treatment of individual patients, but it would make it possible to carry out independent investigations into the situation at these hospitals.
I am glad to say that I have been given the names of the hospitals concerned and I have now asked for sufficient particulars to relate each hospital to a specific section of Chapter 3 of the book so that the hospital board chairmen can arrange for inquiries to be carried out by a legally qualified chairman from outside the National Health Service, assisted by other persons unconnected with the hospital concerned.
More generally, all chairmen of regional hospital boards and boards of governors are aware that if particular cases cannot be dealt with by investigation, everything possible must be done through management. I have asked the managers of all hospitals, through their senior staff, to make searching inquiries into the possibility that any form of inhumanity, particularly in the treatment of elderly patients, might exist in any of the hospitals for which they are responsible.
I am not, of course, attempting to prejudge the outcome of the investigations which are being undertaken. No one at this stage can say with certainty that any of the allegations is either true or untrue. Should it prove that even a single charge of brutality or inhumanity is substantiated then, of course, I welcome its exposure.
But the other side of the balance sheet should not be overlooked. The method of presentation of the case, in a series of anonymous charges against unidentifiable persons in unnamed hospitals, has also caused immeasurable distress and anxiety, not only to nursing and other staff, but, what is certainly no less important, to the relatives and friends of patients, both present and future, and, indeed, to those who themselves are likely to need geriatric or psychiatric care in hospital in the near future.
This type of generalised attack on the quality of care given to the elderly in hospital can hardly assist nurse recruitment, on which continued progress must depend. I sometimes wonder if the ready credence that seems to be given in so many quarters to allegations not yet proved, may not be a reflection of a deep collective guilt we feel at having transferred to public authority something we instinctively still regard as a private and family responsibility.
If malpractices of the kind alleged in this book exist, it is inconceivable that they are in any way widespread. To believe this would be to accept that there is in many of our hospitals not only a conspiracy of silence among the nursing staff of all grades, but, indeed, a conspiracy against the patients, and especially the weakest and most helpless patients. Does anyone, do the authors of "Sans Everything", does the editor of the Nursing Mirror, really believe this?
There have been suggestions that nursing staff and others are afraid to come forward with complaints for fear of reprisals against themselves or against the patients. My first reaction was to dismiss this possibility out of hand. I have, however, since seen the questionnaire on this subject in the Nursing Mirror of 16th June, and a selection of the replies has been published. They have convinced me that such fears do exist, at least among a small minority of nursing staff.
It is, as hon. Members will appreciate, extremely difficult to deal with apprehensions of this sort, but I am considering what may be done to dispel them. Senior officers of my Department have already discussed this with the President of the Royal College of Nursing, and we


shall be considering what further action would be appropriate. We have discussed with the Royal College of Nursing the wider aspects of this whole subject, to explore what action the Royal College and we can take to encourage more widely the modern, positive approach to geriatric nursing and the care of the elderly generally.
Before leaving "Sans Everything", I should like to make one further point which may be not without significance. The gentleman who has the task in Chapter 4 of commenting on the anonymous nurses' allegations is said to have had 15 years of nursing experience, yet he states that he has never personally witnessed any case of ill treatment of patients.
To sum up, I have no evidence that any patients are deliberately ill-treated as alleged in "Sans Everything". I am ready and anxious to investigate anything which can be investigated, and I am determined that, if there are malpractices in any hospital, they shall be uncovered and eliminated. I know that there art difficult conditions in some psychiatric and geriatric hospitals, due to unsatisfactory buildings, overcrowding or shortage of staff. That is one reason the more for paying tribute again to the staff who give devoted care to patients while having to work in those conditions.

Mr. Fisher: I am sorry to interrupt again but there is one point which the Minister did not mention in talking about "Sans Everything". Could he categorically confirm that he will give the protection of complete anonymity to any nurses—he referred to the Nursing Mirror and the information which he had had on the point—who are, apparently, genuinely afraid to come forward without that protection?

Mr. Robinson: If they will come forward and give me their names, I shall, to the very best of my ability, give them all the protection that I possibly can.
I hope that I have left the House in no doubt of the scale of the effort being made by both hospital and local authorities to cope with this great problem not only of caring for our old people, but of enabling them to live as full and as useful lives as possible. We have not

yet achieved all along the line the high standard which we have all set ourselves, but our best is as good as anything in the world. Of course, there is still antiquated provision, but we are fast getting rid of it There may well be personal failings here and there, and, if this be so, we must, as I said, make searching inquiry to identify and eliminate them.
In the meantime, whatever anxieties we may feel about a handful of them, let us pay our tribute to all those who devote themselves unstintingly, week in and week out, to the care and treatment of the older generation.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I echo the warm tribute which the Minister has just paid to those who devote their lives in hospitals and homes to the care of the elderly. I am glad that he is taking seriously the allegations which have been made in the book "Sans Everything" and will investigate any specific allegations which are made. I hope that he will look carefully into the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), who opened the debate so ably, of an inspectorate on the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.
I agree with my hon. Friend when she says that the problem of the care of elderly patients does not fit into a tidy or convenient shape, for, as everyone knows, some people preserve their full mental and physical powers until a late age. I think, for example, of my parents. They have a house outside Oxford, a little more than half a mile from the nearest post box, which is at the top of, to me, a fairly steep hill. I always drive up it to post my letters.
Last year, however, my father, at the age of 75, decided that he would make a practice of running up to the post box and back whenever he had a letter to post. I hope that, if I reach his age, I shall be at least half as vigorous. I think, also, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who so often entertains the House, but I know many constituents who have, regret-ably, sunk into senility 10 years or so earlier than his 82 years.
Most hon. Members agree with the general proposition that need increases with age. I have been one of those who


have advocated over the years that the basic pension rates should go up as age increases. I am sure that social historians of the future will be staggered to note that 185,000 of the oldest inhabitants of this country are deliberately excluded from the pension system because they are too old, because they were past the contributory pension age by the time our present system was introduced.
If the Government are determined not to do anything about the pension rights of these 185,000 people, at an average age of 85—alas, there will soon be many fewer of them—I hope that they will at least consider a drastic transformation of the supplementary benefit limit on capital and income for those over 80.
Another group of the aged who have not received very good care in recent months comprises those who seek to remain at work in the community. A number of us have been pressing that employers of those of pensionable age should be relieved of liability to Selective Employment Tax. It is difficult to find out statistically the impact of the tax on those old people who wish to seek part-time employment, but we know that it must be great. A constituent, a grocer, has written to tell me that because of the tax he has had to sack his own father from part-time employment. I hope that in their approach to the care of the elderly the Government will give them a concession on this in the future.
But, meanwhile, I regret to say that they appear to be moving in the opposite direction. I am glad that there has been an improvement in the earnings rule, but, at the same time, there has been a particularly mean withdrawal of the Income Tax concession. A constituent of mine has lost the whole of the pension that was payable to him because of the removal of the concession. He writes:
I have now received notification from the local office of the Ministry of Social Security that they have retained my order book as I no longer have any pension due. This supports my contention that the publicity attached to the announcement by the Government of the increased earning allowance was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Up to the present I have received £1 4s. per week, but with the increase of the earning allowance I should have expected an increase in this amount, and not a decrease. My earnings per week after deduction of Income Tax of £4 8s. are £7 2s., which means that for a full-time

job I get £7 2s. a week and the Government benefit by £8 8s. a week".
It seems to me that the withdrawal of the concession will hit a small group of not very well off pensioners who are trying to make a contribution to the community and who I do not believe have received a fair deal from the Government.
The Minister said a great deal about the geriatric units and the work of the specialists in hospitals. But he did not tell us much about the work going on here on the development of drugs to combat senility. When I was in America recently, I had an opportunity of talking to the director of the Worcester Institute of Experimental Biology, which has done notable work in many fields. He told me of some of the exciting work being undertaken in the development of hormones to push back the onset of senility.
I hope that the Minister can say something about the work that is being done in this country when he replies, for this is a sphere in which we should not lag far behind the Americans.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I join the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in congratulating the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) on the way in which she opened the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the very useful information he has given us today.
My right hon. Friend referred to the growing problem of old people in the community, which we all recognise. That recognition may not be reflected in the attendance here this afternoon, but perhaps last evening and the evening yet to come have something to do with the sparseness of our numbers. I am sure that it does not show that we are not interested in problems of this kind.
As my right hon. Friend said, the numbers of elderly are growing. It is also important to bear in mind that over the past decade or two we have lived a much more sophisticated life in what is known as the affluent society, and the break on retirement is now all the sharper for the elderly as they have enjoyed higher standards of living. These are the special problems that we must deal with in the 1960s and 1970s that we did not face in the 1920s or 1930s.
It is important that the House should consider how we can best channel the tremendous amount of good will on both sides and in the country into dealing with this very serious problem. I am sure that we are all impressed by the number of people who tell us how we should help old age pensioners. They say, "I do not mind paying an extra 2s. on my stamp or a little more in Income Tax". But, unhappily, when the day of reckoning comes, and the deductions are made at the end of the week or the month, we sometimes hear rather a different story. When we can release more resources for the important problems of the elderly it should not be just a question of increasing the country's wealth, the share remaining the same, but increasing the percentage available for the elderly from the increase that we hope to have over the next two or three years. This is the real test of our sincerity on the problem.
The first amount of extra money we think of spending should go automatically on the individual. Much has been done, which I am sure is appreciated, in the abolition of prescription charges, better allowances, rent rebates and so on, but a great deal more can be done.
My right hon. Friend is under a great deal of pressure at present from various pressure groups within the House and outside which suggest that more money should be spent on other needy groups. Some of them have a great deal to say for themselves, and I sometimes fear that in all the noise about a particular group the problem of some of the old people, although it will not be forgotten, might slip a place or two in the list of our priorities. I am sure that no matter what is said by some of our learned journals and newspapers and some of our sociologists the vast majority of the people in the community would want the care and maintenance of old people to be the Government's first priority.
Secondly, more of our resources should be spent not just on individuals—which we all want to see—but on the study of the problems involved in growing old. A great deal of gratuitous advice is given to Ministers and others concerned with the problem by a number of people, perhaps including myself, who know very little about the technical problems involved in growing old—loneliness, specialised hous-

ing for old people and the work that they do in retirement. I was encouraged by my right hon. Friend's comment that there was a new interest by the Royal College of Physicians and some of the teaching hospitals, particularly in the South—I am sorry that it is not so in the North—in the problem of geriatric medicine. In the North, we have only one chair of geriatric medicine in one of our universities, and throughout the country we have no institute of geratology.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will think about these problems. Some very important work in this area was done by the Royal College of Physicians in Scotland a number of years ago. I referred to this in a debate two years ago. The Report of the Royal College began with the obvious comments. The first was that we should sustain people in independence, comfort and contentment in their own homes and that when independence begins to wane we should support them by all necessary means for as long as possible. The Royal College also dealt with the problem of alternative residential accommodation, particularly for those who because of age and infirmity lack a home. Thirdly, it talked about hospital provision for those who are either physically or mentally ill. I suggest that this is a document worthy of my right hon. Friend's attention.
As to the comment that people should continue to live in their own homes we take this to be axiomatic in the problem of dealing with the aged in our community. Most of us accept that it is something that they want to do. We also accept that the Minister of Health would want to keep these people in their own homes in contentment and comfort as long as possible if only to enable him to release hospital beds for more urgent cases. But it is not as simple as is sometimes made out by those who write on the subject. There are far too few old people with families who can help sustain them in their own homes. Many of us have been troubled by recently published statistics showing the number of single and widowed people who have no family assistance. So I hope that when we think of keeping people in their own homes we shall do what we can to coordinate the efforts of general practitioners, social workers and local authority officers.
If we want to keep people in contentment and comfort in their own homes we must provide them with decent houses. Unfortunately, this is something that we just do not do. There are far too many old people—I am not putting this on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend; it must lie on the shoulders of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—who are still living in near slum conditions. This is not because the local authority is not anxious about them, but perhaps because it has given priority to people with larger families, and so on.
A great many old people do not particularly want to leave the area in which they were born and have grown up and have reared their families. They may have lived in the centre of a community for a very long time. When redevelopment of slum areas occurs we push the old people out to the suburbs, to an area which they do not know, understand or like. Therefore, in our redevelopment schemes we should make a place for the aged in our midst.
A great many solutions of this kind have been offered, such as flats for single persons, the building of a group of old people's houses together, or dispersing them among people who have families. For a long time before I came to the House I served as a member of a corporation planning authority. While I think we meant very well in planning provision for old people's houses, frankly we did not know enough about the problem. Our local authority planning officers would have been well advised from time to time to consult people with special knowledge about how old people want to live, particularly in houses of this kind.
Another problem about old people living in their own homes is not just the sort of house that they have, but whether or not they are going to find sufficient occupation. In this respect, we pay tribute to the voluntary societies which try to relieve the boredom of people who find themselves cut off from work after a very long time. They have worked all their lives, and when the break of retirement comes it is very difficult for them to adjust themselves.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that the Selective Em-

ployment Tax was depriving a number of old people of employment. I have noticed that while this may be true in some parts of the country it is not true in others. However, we have far too many advertisements appearing in newspapers suggesting that a particular type of part-time job is suited to an old-age pensioner. My father, who is nearly 70, is an old-age pensioner, and he applied for one such job. The job started at 9.30 in the morning and finished at 4.30 in the afternoon, for which he was to be given the princely sum of £4 10s. per week. Happily, he had a local authority pension and turned down the job because he could afford to have principles in the matter.
If one does not have a local authority pension, or some other form of assistance beyond one's old-age pension, one cannot afford principles of this kind and so takes such jobs. Perhaps what we need in 1967 is a Shaftesbury for old-age pensioners. The use of old-age pensioners in this way is a growing problem. I am sure that the old-age pensioners take the work because they want a little extra money and wish to relieve the boredom associated with retirement. Nevertheless, I hope that my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Labour will keep an eye on the problem and cut out exploitation of this kind.
Further in connection with the problem of living at home, I wonder whether it is possible to extend the domestic help service. It is an excellent service in many parts of the country, but the difficulty seems to be that there is not enough of it and that there is insufficient weekend care particularly for single people.
Another problem is that of the consultative health centre. My right hon. Friend dealt with residential accommodation, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike). I was encouraged to hear of the increase in the number of people specialising in geriatric medicine in hospitals. However, I suggest that we need some means of channelling the expertise of local authorities and that this can be done only through the centres that my right hon. Friend mentioned. In Rutherglen we have one of the few consultative health centres in the country. The work done there by the medical officer of health


in co-operation with the Western Regional Hospital Board and the Departrment of Geriatric Medicine in Glasgow University is a model well worth being copied.
Unhappily, just not enough copying is being done and the point which the two doctors concerned have often made to mo—that we should as best we can, bring families and the old people into these centres in order to be given some education—is not given enough consideration. I do not want to detain the House further on this point, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will, in reply, refer to the problem of consultative health centres and whether or not we can expand them.
The Report of the Royal College of Physicians for Scotland emphasises that old age is not necessarily a time of ill health, disability and particularly of misery. I hope that this is the attitude we shall adopt and I trust that my right hon. Friends will give their attention.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In taking part in this debate, we must all remember that we are not talking about old people generally, or about the elderly as a whole or even the great majority of old people. What we are really concerned with are those whom we can call the defeated, who, by themselves or with their families, are not, for one reason or another, able to cope with life after reaching retirement age and beyond.
That in a way meets the point put by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) in considering the priorities that are given to old people and to other deprived the mentally or physically handicapped. We are dealing in each case with only one group of people—those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer cope by themselves and who therefore must be a charge to some extent upon their neighbours, whether those neighbours be the immediate family or the community as a whole.
It is in this context that Mrs. Robb's book has made such an impact. In discharging this collective responsibility, we may not yet have totally eliminated the workhouse and the workhouse mentality. Whilst bearing in mind what the Minister of Health has said, we should be grateful to Mrs. Robb because she has, as he himself suggested, perhaps pinpointed a sense of guilt in ourselves, inasmuch as that

we are relying more on other people to discharge responsibilities in which, in our hearts, each one of us knows should be discharged by ourselves.
I am sure that all hon. Members will have shared my own experience of listening to a constituent deploring that the old-age pension is so low with a passion which probably stems from the fact that he is not using his own capacity to help the old person concerned. In other words, it is the sense of guilt at what he is not doing which motivates the venom with which such a person attacks what the State is doing.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Rutherglen said in suggesting that we should extend the study of gerontology. One of our most pressing needs in dealing with the care of the elderly is to prevent as many as possible from becoming defeated and to enable them to continue more or less normal lives. We should be doing a great disservice to Mrs. Robb and those who worked with her—who, I am sure, were sincere and compassionate and determined in their approach—if we assumed that what she has written about concerns only a few cases of scandal which require some sort of administrative clean-up and that we do not need to probe further into community services looking after old people.
I am convinced, like the Minister, that what Mrs. Robb found can only exist in a minority of cases and that the vast majority of those looking after the old do so with care and compassion and selfless devotion that is remarkable to see. But we should probe further into our Welfare State as an organised body as well as into the facts with which the book is concerned. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and I am prepared to believe him—this sort of conduct only affects a tiny minority of people, why are we so worried? We are right to be worried, as he said, if only one case of cruelty is discovered. But our sense of worry goes rather further. I think that we are worried in the same way that we are worried by a Welfare State which has produced family poverty and the terrible conditions under which some of the disabled are forced to live.
We should examine not only our care of the elderly but the mounting evidence that we are tending to weaken and control the strong without in any equivalent


way helping the weak. Indeed, in some cases the reverse is true. We tend to claim for the State too large a proportion of the responsibility which should rightly be that of the individual and in doing so we are failing to enable the State to discharge all those responsibilities. At the same time we are preventing the individual from discharging fully his own resposibilities and are enabling him to salve his conscience by pretending that it is all nothing to do with him anyway because nowadays the Government do it.
The care of the elderly has been called a collective responsibility. I reject the idea that it is merely a collective responsibility. It is not. That is the kind of responsibility that one has towards animals on a farm or units of output in a factory. The responsibility is really much more what one might call a universal individual responsibility, in the sense that, if the individual cannot take care of the elderly himself, then it is at least his personal and individual responsibility to see that it is done for him in the community. After all, that sort of idea is a truism among more primitive people who know this sort of problem very well.
I do not think that this is even a question of "private affluence combined with public squalor"; because in the care of old people, even in public responsibility, there is essentially a private aspect, covering not only the relationship of old people with the apparatus of the community in which they live—the institutions, the local authority services and the government, national or local, in the many ways it impinges on the elderly—but also with the other people, individuals, who live in that community too.
Of course, in this House and in this debate, we are concerned with the public aspects. The statistics show that, whatever the possibility is of increasing private responsibility and of affluence, enabling people to do more themselves for their elderly relatives, the care of the elderly will make increasing demands upon the health and welfare services. In some ways, improved medical science cancels itself out, for, while it enables people to live longer, it does not necessarily keep them in better health. Moreover if we are to solve our economic problems, social and geographic mobility must in-

crease, which again must put more on the health and welfare services for the retired and the elderly.
I want to make it plain that when I attack the Government in the course of this speech I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues only, I am referring to the governmental machine and the tendencies which it demonstrates no matter which political party is in nominal charge of it.
There are four main types of institution which deal with elderly people: first, the ordinary acute wards in general hospitals; second, the psychiatric wards or mental hospitals; third, the geriatric wards in general hospitals; and, fourth, local authority and private homes.
The main tenor of the debate and of my hon. Friend's opening remarks is the danger, in the present complexity of methods of dealing with old people, of the wrong methods being used in individual cases. As the Minister said, old people change very fast, they become confused, they require psychiatric treatment, they require varying sorts of help relatively quickly and it is not easy to keep pace with their needs. However, there is no doubt that the wrong use of the facilities available is leading in some cases to waste of effort and the sort of abuses that "Sans Everything " described. Even if the accident is pardonable, leaving an ordinary elderly person in a mental ward for any length of time inevitably tends to make him more confused. Equally, it is sometimes difficult to get the right psychiatric treatment for people in ordinary geriatric or acute wards or local authority homes.
There is a genuine difficulty in the cooperation between the various authorities which are involved, although I would thank the Minister for the careful description he gave of the methods that he is proposing to constantly improve these techniques.
There is also genuine difficulty in getting people to come forward to undergo training for geriatric work. One must admit, in discussing this problem, that nursing old and incontinent people is not easy and is sometimes unpleasant. Old people themselves are frequently very difficult and even rather nasty. I do not wish to weaken my argument in any way, but this


is something which has to be admitted in trying to cope with the institutional problems involved.
Most of all we need to look constantly and carefully at the capacity of the institutions which we now propose to develop to help elderly people remain in the community. This particular consideration demands the most flexible arrangements and the widest possible number of different sorts of treatment available in the same area, or at least close enough together, to avoid having to move old people far away from their habitual surroundings to get them into the right sort of home or get them the right sort of treatment.
I have one or two positive and constructive suggestions to make. There is a lot to be said for what might be called the three tier system; that is to say, an old people's home for those who cannot live outside an institution; with, nearby, and staffed from the old people's home, bungalows or flats with a certain amount of supervision and the possibility of communal meals, but with private kitchenettes available; with, roundabout, bungalows in the community for those who can live on their own, with a modicum of supervision from the centre. The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will probably recognise this as a description of institutions which are in existence in her constituency.
The second sort of unit which I would like to see developed further is the type developed at Colchester at the Severalls Hospital where regard is paid to relieving the relatives of old people from the burden of looking after them for at least some period of the year. The work done at that hospital, on the concept of "month in, month out", makes it much easier to make the transition between hospitalisation and living fully in the community, as does the concept of a day hospital and the other methods used to supplement home life.
There is a great deal more work to be done in considering the rôle of the family doctor, group practice, and the health centre in integrating geriatric care with the rest of the community care which is being developed. Incidentally, I think we are at the moment begging the whole question of whether we will move to-

wards a family doctor service based on the individual or a family doctor service based on what might be called community care and a more public health or preventative aspect of medicine.
There are one or two other relatively minor acts which could be done which are relevant to this problem. I should like to see the whole level and incidence of tax relief given to people for dependent relatives looked at again. I should like consideration to be given to the question of whether grants could be paid to individuals on the lines of the proposals of the Disablement Income Group to enable old people, who might not otherwise be able to live at home, to continue to do so; grants which would therefore not be a net charge on the Exchequer. I should like consideration to be given to grants for conversion of housing to enable old people to live on their own or with their relatives.
In this matter and in the Welfare State as a whole we must consider the action of the State as enabling people to help themselves rather than merely as taking over responsibility for them. The tendency of the community to replace individual action and responsibility is inherent in our modern world with its complexity, technology, and in the increasing gap between those who are living on a normal average income and the poor —the poor getting poorer as the average gets higher. This increases the problem and in some ways the tendency to hand over more and more to the State is beginning to add to the problem which it is ostensibly solving.
I think it also partially explains the obduracy of institutions, the difficulty of getting complaints heard, and of getting those in authority to listen. When one comes forward with complaints of one sort and another, it is almost as if authority, anonymous and impersonal, was saying to each of us that by abandoning our individual responsibilities we have in some sense abandoned the right to complain about the treatment of those whom we have handed over to the State. We must ensure that that responsibility is accepted by us individually, even if we have to devise a mechanism for its discharge.
For these reasons, I should like to have the whole question of the accountability of our various institutions looked at


again. Who is in ultimate control of hospitals? Can the Minister order or only advise? Will the sort of inquiry he is making actually get to the root of the matter? I could not help feeling, as he was speaking, that he showed in some sort the complacency of the machine—that here we had the brave new world solution to the future, but not much hope of getting matters deeply looked into in the present. He used the words "psychogeriatric assessment unit" as if it was a sort of old people's 11-plus. I have no doubt that he was right, but it did seem extremely dehumanised.
I am not really criticising what he said, nor the progressive and practical ideas which he put forward, but rather wondering whether we are not tinkering with the problem and whether it is a problem which is especially acute for old people only because they are especially weak. More and more in the modern State the individual's importance is lessened and shaken in face of the demands of the machine. More and more we are isolated in the society in which we live according to our category in the administrative machine—child of school age, student, productive worker, old person—seeming real to the machine only in so far as it acts on us as a member of such a group.
When the Minister was speaking I wondered why I almost automatically believed Mrs. Robb's allegations, and I came to the conclusion that it was because they were merely an extreme example of the harshness of the impact of the State on the individual. In housing cases, in child welfare cases and in other matters of which each of us has experience in handling constituency cases, authority as such is callous.
In considering the special problems of the old, we must bear in mind that callousness is becoming normal in our society and that it is an attitude of mind which is as important as any institutional change or plans for the future, an attitude of mind which it behoves each of us to eradicate in ourselves, not at some time in the future, but now.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) made in interesting speech. It is not my inten-

tion to follow his arguments, except to say this about his reference to the occasional nastiness of some elderly people. Some of our elderly are people whose lives were soured by long years of unemployment in the 1930s and many of them now have to exist in institutions —I shall not call them welfare homes—which were called Bastilles when they were built in the 19th century as workhouses under the so-called New Poor Law. These are elderly people who can crave some indulgence for any occasional nastiness they may show.
My first concern in the debate is to emphasise the importance of a topic which has not yet been mentioned, but which I regard as fundamental in any discussion of the welfare and well-being of the elderly. This is the need for much more attention to be given to the problems of preparing to retire. It is a new experience for our community to face the fact that more than 12 per cent. of the population is fit and lively and yet over retiring age. Every month, active people are having to give up work and are losing status and being driven into loneliness and isolation because of our rules about compulsory retirement. Happy are those with money, outlets and interests to keep them occupied when they retire from full-time work, but for many life loses its meaning when they have to retire.
The problem is made worse by the current trend towards retirement at the age of 60. In the world of modern technology, many people, from management to machine tool operators, are unable to hold their own after the age of 55. The farewell handshake may come suddenly or according to schedule, but, unless it is planned for, it can be disastrous.
It is now being realised that retirement raises entirely new problems and responsibilities for individuals, for the firms for which they have worked, and for the community. We still know very little about the adjustments involved in moving from employment to retirement. If the social and economic stability of our community is to be maintained, much more detailed research into this problem is urgently needed. To prepare for other phases of life we go to primary schools, secondary schools, training colleges, technical colleges and universities. Advice is eagerly sought from many different


sources. It is the duty of the House to create a climate of opinion in which it will be as natural to train for retirement as it now is to train to start work. This involves the Government, both sides of industry and the local education authorities, as well as the voluntary organisations.
How bad is the problem? My attention was drawn recently to an excellent statistical survey undertaken by the Workington College of Further Education. Its results show that of 149 men between the ages of 50 and 55, 93 did not know what their retirement income would be; 99 had not considered how they would manage on their retirement income; 104 did not know to what benefits they would be entitled in retirement; and 94—this is the figure in which I am particularly interested in this debate—had no new interests or activities to take up after retirement. The results obtained in the Workington inquiry would, I am sure, be repeated in similar inquiries in other areas throughout the country.
One may well ask what is being done to meet this very important problem? First, there is the Pre-Retirement Association, an organisation which is doing extremely valuable work in helping people to adjust from employment to retirement. It runs many advisory courses and has performed a most useful service in killing the idea that training for retirement should be regarded as old people's welfare. Many of those whom the Pre-Retirement Association is helping are people who just happen to be in their sixties and who want to enjoy life and to continue to make a useful contribution to society.
Moreover, keeping people happy in their own homes would certainly save some of the public resources now devoted to medical care. The Pre-Retirement Association recognises all this. It has set itself the task of making these points commonplace among all who are nearing retirement. Nationally, and through its regional committees, the Association is providing a remarkable service which I should like to be acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in his speech tonight.
Secondly, a great deal of useful work is being done by employers and trade unions in emphasising, to those who are nearing retirement, the difficulties that

will have to be faced and the adjustments that will have to be made. I am particularly pleased that some of the nationalised industries have given the lead in this sphere. For some time I worked as a national officer with the electricity supply industry and had experience of courses organised by local joint consultative committees with the purpose of enabling people to take up new interests following retirement age.
I particularly recall courses which were organised in association with the University of Wales. Men who had lacked any previous opportunity to take an interest in arts and crafts became very good at some art or some craft as a direct result of these pre-retirement courses. I know that many private employers also help by paying fees for their elderly employees' attendance at educational courses and in phasing retirement from work. Thirdly, the local education authorities as well as the universities, are making an important contribution.
I am happy that in the City of Manchester, part of which I have the honour to represent, there are some of the best pre-retirement courses to be found anywhere in the country. Mr. Donald Garside, the Warden of Holly Royde College in South Manchester, has done particularly outstanding work, and much valuable work has also been done by the Lower Mosley Street Adult Education College.
The Pre-Retirement Association, employers, trade unions, the universities and the local authorities are doing excellent work. But it is for this House to emphasise that very much more needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) referred to the University of Glasgow. Some hon. Members will recall the speech made at last year's annual conference of the National Association for Mental Health by Professor W. Ferguson Anderson, the professor in geriatrics at the university. Professor Ferguson Anderson was in fact the first professor of geriatrics ever appointed anywhere in the world. He has carried out a very interesting study to which he referred at last year's conference. The paper convinced me that one important factor responsible for emotional disturbance in the elderly is compulsory retirement. He emphasised that if people are to be


saved from mental ill-health, it is as essential to train them to retire as it is to train them to begin work.
We are not behind other countries in this connection. Much has been written about this in the United States, which may have the lead upon us in terms of precept. They have thought more than we have about the problem of adjustment from work to retirement, but in terms of practice we are doing as well as any other country. I would like to see us doing still more and leading the world because this involves something of the deepest possible human interest and importance. The ideal is that each person should have a genuinely free choice between working and retirement, within the limits of his ability and health, and that when retirement arrives it should be fully prepared for.
What is this life, if full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?
So said the poet, but he was writing for a generation other than ours. One of the problems today is not that people lack some opportunity to stand and stare and reflect. The problem too often now is that people are forced out of work even if they are lively, active and healthy people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has emphasised the importance of this problem, and I hope to hear some reference to this in the Government's reply to the debate.
Some years ago the Co-operative Party published a document called "Care of the Aged" which included many recommendations which have awaited implementation for a very long time. I hope that the Minister, who will be aware of this important document, will give, as it were, a progress report on the recommendations it contained. The document said that in the view of the Co-operative Party:
…the division of responsibility between the hospital board and the local authority in providing for old people can cause unnecessary hardship to some who are 'marginally' sick or who are convalescent. A problem also arises in providing for the chronic sick who are kept in special wards of hospitals or alternatively of welfare institutions because there is nowhere for them to go. If one authority were responsible for meeting the needs of old people who require care and attention of any kind, the many facilities that are available could be readily co-ordinated, transfers effected, and

special provision made to meet any need, all with the minimum of inconvenience or delay.
I am reminded by this recommendation of the reference in a book called "The Social Services of Modern England". Its author, Miss Hall, instanced the case
of a Manchester firewood seller who, after being turned away from hospital because he was not sick, and from the local authority because he was, returned home to die…
This question of co-ordination is one of widespread concern and is of the greatest importance. Another recommendation from the Co-operative Party's document says:
Most old people suffer from foot ailments of varying degrees of severity. Mobility in old people is a condition of their happiness and comfort and keeps them from being cut off from their neighbours and much social activity.
The document recommended that a chiropodist service be provided free to old people as part of the National Health Service. I hope that we shall hear of the progress being made in this direction.
I would now like to say something about the work done in the city of Manchester in many of the spheres referred to in this debate. This is a forward-looking and compassionate authority, which has given a lead to many other local authorities. In Manchester we have attacked with all our resources the problem of improving the quality of the lives of the city's elderly people. We have humanised large institutions by breaking them down into smaller ones and building welfare homes for small groups of elderly people in which they can live together as families.
I am pleased that in my constituency there are many of Manchester's new welfare homes which are the pride not only of Manchester but of the north of England generally in the facilities which they provide. I am particularly glad that we have a home called Weylands in the Baguley area of my constituency which is for those who have spent much of their lives in mental institutions. They are recovered mental patients but are unable to return to their families—in many cases because they have no families— and have been provided with a welfare home by the City Corporation. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to note the importance which we attach


to Weylands and to hear from him how many other local authorities are being advised to follow Manchester's example in providing welfare homes for mentally recovered patients. What progress is being made in this respect?
I should like also to hear what is being done to help more the voluntary organisations which do so much to provide the meals-on-wheels service and in extending the facilities of luncheon clubs which we have in Manchester and in some other local authorities. One of our problems is to improve the quality of life of elderly people by treating them more as people and not forcing them into retirement when they are still fit to work, by helping them to train to retire and by providing the best social services whenever they need help from the community.

6.2 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: We seem to be enjoying an unaccustomed amount of agreement and unanimity today. I hope that we can preserve the same degree of accord in suggesting positive steps which should be taken on this important question rather than merely talking about it.
I join in the general congratulations given to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for the way in which she introduced this subject and the responsible way in which she approached various aspects of the problem. I join, too, in the thanks which have been offered to the Minister of Health for the way in which he gave certain extremely important undertakings about the investigations arising from the "Sans Everything" document. I agree substantially with almost everything said by hon. Members.
I might quarrel briefly with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), who appeared to place too much emphasis on further research into and further consideration of methods of dealing with the problem. We all know enough about quite a lot of things. I could take the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he could take me, to old people's homes which are entirely satisfactory. I could take him, and he could take me, to geriatric wards and units carrying on an extremely high standard of work and which cannot be faulted.

Therefore, there is ample evidence that we have institutions which are satisfactory, but there is also evidence that we do not have enough of them and they are not always in the right places. I hope that we shall get on with doing what we have shown we can do rather than spend too much time thinking about other possibilities.
As has been said, this is an immense and growing problem. The fact that it is growing has particular relevance for the medical profession. Perhaps I can remind the House that the human body was never intended to endure for the length of time which it is now fortunately enduring. I do not wish to put the clock back; I am glad that we can look forward to a much greater expectation of life. But for a great many years the human body was expected to last for only about 35 years. It should therefore come as no surprise to hon. Members when they find that they are losing their teeth at that age and that the connective tissue begins to disintegrate and they develop various infirmities.
What this means to the medical profession is that it is becoming more monopolised by a growing section of the population, not for the treatment of active disease, but for measures to prevent or slow down degenerative processes. The Minister referred to this matter. It is of significance and we must consider it in any solution at which we arrive.
In this country we are very much dependent for our attitudes to the old on purely personal convictions—how we happen to feel as individuals about our relationships with others. When we turn our eyes to the Eastern and Oriental countries, we find that the care of the aged has become embedded in religious and social customs to such an extent that the force of tabus ensures effective care. That does not happen in this country. There is no doubt that in Eastern countries neglect of an old person would be regarded in something like the same light in which we in this country tend to regard aberrational sexual behaviour. I mention that, not because there is a connection, but to show how highly emotive a question care of the aged can be and how looking after one's parents or grandparents is deeply embedded in the culture pattern of some


societies. In this country, it is not so embedded. We must therefore think very deeply about how we should deal with the problem.
I recall a quotation which made a great impression on me. It made such an impression that I regret that I cannot remember who said it, but I should still like to quote it:
The care of the aged, irrespective of their medical, mental or social disability, is a measure of the dignity and culture of a country".
Those are important words. We should consider what we have done so far and what we hope to do in the future with that kind of attitude in mind.
There are many aspects to this problem, but I prefer to concentrate on the health aspects with which I have more personal contact and merely to make passing reference to the more general matters. But it is important to emphasise that the care of the elderly is not specifically an urban problem. There is a tendency for people to think that difficulties regarding the aged arise only in what we generally look upon as slums and in heavily populated areas. There is a tendency too, particularly for urban dwellers, to regard conditions in the country as being inevitably satisfactory. Because there are cottages with roses round the door, it is presumed that everything within is similar.
May I remind hon. Members of a book called "The Ageing Countryman", produced by Dr. Miller, which points very sharply to some of the very special problems of the elderly in country districts. They are separated from the sources of help. Often they have a degree of loneliness which is much greater than that of people in the towns. Sometimes they are exposed to great dangers merely by being in the country. Often they do not have social services or even council services. The water supply and sanitation may not be of the same standard enjoyed by people in the towns. It is, therefore, worth remembering that this is not exclusively an urban problem.
I mention this in no spirit of criticism of the Minister, but he referred to his hopes for the development of community care, with the bringing in of local authority services to general practitioners and their combination in some kind of health

centre arrangement. I agree with him entirely about this. But we must not forget that this could never solve the very special problems which cover large areas of the country and in which old people will always have to be the responsibility of an individual rather than an institution.
Of the other general aspects to which I would like to have referred, but will make only passing reference, the first is finance. We have to think again about our pensions policy, and we have in the end, I hope, to arrive at a situation in which retirement pensions are automatically linked to current earnings, so that there is not inevitably a delay before adjustment is made. This is relevant to the care of the aged.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said about the whole process of retirement. Many of our taxation and pension policies, and even our social attitudes, tend to create too much of a situation of sudden retirement whereby people go from full work to full rest in a highly traumatic fashion.
I remind the Minister who is to reply of the recent conference at the council of Europe at Strasbourg at which the British representative paid lip-service at least to the principle of trying to phase retirement and make it into a gradual process over a period of years rather than a sudden one. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe made this point and I will not elaborate it further, save to say that the earnings rule still has an unsatisfactory effect. Again, however, it would not be proper to go too far into that.
The various angles which should be examined concerning housing include the question of social attitudes. The tendency towards the philosophy of living in little boxes has produced special problems for elderly people and tended to have a divisive effect on families, because couples automatically assume that they must live in a little box, a very small one, which is only just the right size, and they do not have room for older relatives when the time arrives. I do not wish to see a return to the old clannish days when a family remained together almost always and the departure of one of them was regarded as regrettable. Nevertheless, we have, I think, gone a little too


far in the other direction. This should be thought of when considering housing programmes and when local authorities and others consider the kind of housing which should be provided in a modern society.
I do not want to go into consideration of the size of the problem—we all know how big it is—but will go straight to what I regard as a more important or more relevant matter, namely, health considerations. In particular, one has to consider where the various old people should be cared for. Hon. Members have dealt with the question of their remaining at home. I agree that the more we can do to assist families to keep their elderly relatives at home, the better. There is no doubt about this.
Some of this depends upon housing. If the house is inadequate one cannot necessarily arrive at that kind of solution, but there are other things that we can do. I recommend to the Government, and to the Minister of Health in particular, the establishment of training courses for relatives of elderly people to assist them in looking after old people. I have seen many cases in which the difficulties appeared to be much greater than they were merely because those responsible for the old persons, who frequently might be people who were sick, had no kind of training or experience in how to handle and look after them. There would be great merit in the establishment here and now of courses for the training of relatives and friends in the care of the elderly and of the chronic sick. If that was done, it would take some of the load off the official sources—the district nursing service, home helps and the rest—and it might even take some of the load off the hospitals.
A further need is the availability of equipment of one kind or another. We all know of the many new gadgets and inventions to assist old people who may be partially handicapped to live at home, but the availability of these items in our society is patchy, to say the least. In some areas they may be readily available, but in others they are not.
A crucial point in the whole problem of the care of the elderly is the existing situation of divided responsibility. An individual doctor can find himself with an elderly patient for whom he is respon-

sible. He has to provide the medicine and general care and make periodic visits. The same patient may be under the care of a hospital clinic for a specialised condition for which occasionally there is supervision. The patient may from time to time come under the care of the medical officer of health in dealing with hygiene problems or infections. There are many ways in which the medical officer of health or the divisional medical officer may be brought in. The patient may be getting meals on wheels through the R.W.V.S. and a clean linen service through an entirely different voluntary organisation.
There may be a loan scheme operated by the Red Cross to lend out bed pans or other items which may be necessary for the old person at home. Frequently, wheel chairs and items may be borrowed from hospitals. To borrow other appliances, the old person may have to go to a separate hospital or clinic from the original one. In addition, the health visitor or district nurse might be visiting the patient. When one adds to that the involvement, which is not inconsiderable, of the Ministry of Social Security, one finds that the elderly person may be getting help from a whole number of totally different sources.
It has always been my view that where so many people are responsible, there is a tendency for none fully to accept responsibility. There is, therefore, a fairly urgent need for the appointment in each local authority and local health authority area of a person or official who would be called an old persons' officer. We already have an appointment like this with the children's officer, so that there is precedent for it. The children's officer system is not necessarily wholly analogous, but we need some kind of official whose sole duty is to make himself or herself aware of the size of the problem in the area, to identify the people and to ensure that all the various sources of assistance and health are integrated.
In doing that, great assistance would be provided to the general practitioner. Even the most knowledgable G.P. frequently has difficulty in knowing where to get various things. He does not always know what is available, he sometimes does not even know that something is available and, therefore, he does not


try to find out where it can be obtained. If we had somebody who was responsible for integrating all these services and for being aware of what was available in the area, this would be of help to all those working with the elderly and also to the elderly people themselves.
Next on this theme we must speed up the end of the tripartite system within the National Health Service and the nonsensical arrangement whereby people who all do the same work, and who should be working co-operatively in some kind of partnership, may be employed by entirely separate authorities—the general practitioner, for example, by the executive council and all the local authority services by the local health authority, in addition to all the various hospital services, and never the twain shall meet. If we persist in having these organisational divisions, we will never get the kind of integration that we want.
I think that the Minister of Health shares that view. I have heard him in this Chamber say that he was looking forward at least to experiments towards integration of the Health Service. I hope that he will speed them up, because while we continue these divided services we will tend to miss things out and not make economic use of our resources, which we do not have to excess.
There are a number of things to be thought about immediately concerning elderly people who live in homes on their own and not with relatives. First in importance is visitors. This has particular reference to what I have said about the ageing countryman. It is essential that elderly people should be visited. All sorts of systems of visiting are operated through the local authority, voluntary organisations and others, but unless we make one person responsible for seeing that it happens and finding out to whom it should happen, inevitably people will be missed out. The fact that they are missed out is amply evidenced by recent publications about deaths from hypothermia—the figures which Dr. Taylor has published showing that perhaps thousands of old people die merely because they are cold, and who would not die if they were visited by people who realised the situation and the importance of supplying help at the right time.
We have to supply better methods of keeping them living on their own, and at the same time keeping them in contact with other people, perhaps by the installation of the telephone and perhaps, if I may say so, the introduction of modern science and new methods—radio equipment, and so on. We have seen it done by the hostel type of arrangement, the settlement type of arrangement, whereby people living in little flatlets on an old people's estate are connected with the warden's flat by radio communication, so that an old person can, at least at night, when he or she goes to sleep, switch on and have the feeling of security that somebody will hear if he or she should call if something goes wrong. This is one way we should make much more progress, and we need, too, the establishment of more wardens to look after these people.
We ought to look, too, more and more at old people's transport problems. I agree that we have a concessionary fare system in so far as old people are living in an area which is served by local authority transport, but it is surely high time that we provided some arrangements in those areas which are served not by local authority transport but by private transport.
One could go on on these matters for a very long time, and I do not wish to do so, but I would emphasise once again the conditions of old people living on their own, and that brings us back again to the importance of increasing and integrating the services, and of speeding up, what I hope is not far away, the end of the tripartite structure of the National Health Service.
Much of the discussion so far has been about the old people in hostels or in hospitals, and I want to join in the general tributes which have been paid to the staffs and their dedication to their work in those hospitals and in those hostels. I have had intimate experience of many, of some local authority establishments, some private, and some joint, and I have seen the excellent work they do with skill, knowledge, compassion and good humour, and I, too, would regard it as very regrettable if the criticisms which have been made tend in any way to throw doubt on the standards of hostel


accommodation in general. The fact remains that many of these hostels do operate under very great difficulties, and they are likely, I think, to operate under greater difficulties as staffing problems increase.
This applies to geriatric units as well. I think that sometimes, when we begin to congratulate ourselves on the provision of hostels, that we have provided geriatric beds, that we are doing better because we have got more, we should remember that we should not be wise to rely on the present demand as being necessarily a true indication of what is the actual demand, for the fact remains that the general practitioner does not seek accommodation in a geriatric ward for patients if he knows perfectly well he is not going to get it. I have myself visited patients whom I should have liked to get into a hospital, and I have known that I could not because I had two or three others whom I regarded as having a higher priority. What I am saying is that however much the Minister increases the amount of accommodation, the general practitioners will fill it, and they will keep on filling it till he increases it by very much more than he has in mind at the moment.
I want to come very briefly to these allegations regarding ill-treatment, cruelty and so on. I, too, have had discussions with Mrs. Cross, the editor of Nursing Mirror as, indeed, have other hon. Members, and I think there is some merit in her suggestion of some kind of an independent standing committee which could hear complaints from nurses, because I have been impressed myself—I think the Minister has himself been impressed—by the number of nurses who have written to her to say that if they were aware of conditions of this kind they would be in great difficulty in reporting this as they would feel they were, perhaps, in jeopardy of the possibility of recriminations. There is one thing which Mrs. Cross said which I should like to quote:
I do not believe that witch hunts against junior personnel serve any lasting purpose.
I entirely agree with her, and I would suggest that if anything valuable is to come out of this there must be a full investigation into all the conditions which can result in these sorts of things happening, or in the suspicion that they are

happening, or in allegations that they are in fact happening.
I ask the House to believe that quite compassionate people can sometimes be cruel and be neglectful when they are subject to intense pressures—I saw it myself during the war years—perhaps in an understaffed hospital when there is a great deal of night duty and a nurse is looking after a very large number of patients and there is an inducement—not to ill-treat; there is no desire to do violence—but an inducement, perhaps, to behave in a way which she would not normally do. The inducement can in some circumstances be a very strong one.
I should like to mention in this connection that it should not be forgotten that many cases of cruelty to old people arise not through nurses, not through people who work in hospitals, but from the relatives themselves. I, too, have seen relatives—children who, perhaps, have been with their parents all their lives—and who are fond of them, but in conditions which are beyond their own control they have treated those patients cruelly, sometimes even dangerously. It is rather parallel to the battered baby syndrome, in which the parents do not wish to hurt the child but sometimes act in a way which causes injuries. These are people who need help and understanding, and the kind of help which they need is the kind of help which the staff in these geriatric wards and hospitals need in terms of beds, of additional staff, and resources generally.
I should like to quote a letter which I think important and which comes from a consultant geriatrician in my own constituency, Dr. Tweedy, who wrote to me about a constituent when he had certain difficulties in getting this patient into a geriatric ward. In his letter he says:
I have made official representation to the regional board that I do not consider we can meet our obligations on the geriatric line until the Group has more beds. Last year, for instance, 190 patients died before we were able to admit them to hospital, and this was out of a total admission rate of about 1,130 in a year.
Is this not serious? And it is confirmed by my own personal experience, that some 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. of old people die while on waiting lists, and they are only on waiting lists if there is a very good reason for them to go into hospital—if they have not got somebody


to look after them at home, for instance. There is a percentage something like this of people who die while waiting to go into these places, and Dr. Tweedy refers to this point in this unfortunate case; he says that that patient needed nursing care but it was difficult to get her into hospital because there was someone in the house
to provide for her bodily needs although she unfortunately has to be left alone all day long as the daughter has to earn her living.
There is nothing special about that particular case; it is typical of cases all over the country: the facilities we have at the moment are just not adequate.
We can talk for a long time—perhaps I have talked for a long time—about all sorts of aspects of this problem, but it comes down to one thing and one thing only: money. We have got to spend more money on the provision of resources for the care of the elderly, and unless we do spend more money no amount of talking will do any good at all.
The hon. Lady quoted from the book prepared by the National Institute for Social Work, "Caring for People", and I should like to quote some of the conclusions there. For instance, on page 191 we read:
We realise that the establishment of training courses, improved accommodation, shorter hours of work and the other changes in staff conditions which we have recommended will cost money. But unless this money is spent there is no hope of any significant improvement in the numbers and quality of the staff who enter and remain in residential work; and unless there is significant improvement in these respects it is not possible to provide the amount and quality of care that is needed The happiness and welfare of the hundreds of thousands who must be cared for in residential Homes depend on our willingness to spend this money. We do not consider the extra costs excessive in relation to the amount of human happiness involved.
Nor do I consider the amount excessive, and I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his job is not only to reply to this debate but to do what he can, in the face of many competitors, to obtain more resources for this section of our social activity. If he does that, I suggest that the care of the elderly will prove in time to be very much more relevant to the real needs of the people than many of the activities which at present get greater priority.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The subject of health receives far too little prominence in this House and for that reason I welcome this debate.
It is significant that the Opposition have chosen their 25th Supply Day for a health debate. Presumably, they do not consider that the National Health Service is too badly run by this Government, having chosen it as their Supply Motion at the very end of the Session. In moving it, the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of sustained slapping of his own back. Certainly it seems to have had its effect, in that the general tone of the debate has not been highly critical of the Government, considering that it is a Supply debate.
Many of the lessons which we can learn from studying the care of the elderly can be applied to other branches of the National Health Service. There was a danger that today's debate would end in a series of generalisations and perhaps be based solely on the book "Sans Everything". But I am glad that it has developed into an occasion for a reappraisal of both domiciliary as well as hospital care of the elderly, at the same time examining the faults in the National Health Service as a whole.
All those hon. Members who have spoken so far have finished their speeches by asking where the money is to come from. I should like to start with that question, because we are all aware of the shortages, deficiencies and the various needs which are inherent in the Health Service, particularly in the care of the elderly. In my view, the money should come entirely out of the national income, and we should spend much more of the national income on health. It is quite clear that the Government do not give health a very high priority as a social service when it comes to spending money. They have admitted that housing is their top social priority. We are not here to argue the merits of schools, houses, hospitals, pensions, and so on, but anyone who is interested in the Health Service should keep up the representations to the Government that far more of the national income should be spent on it than at present, because every time that a National Health Service problem is raised, it comes


back to the same point. We know what the problems are. The only solution is to find more money.
When he comes to reply to the debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will say how he thinks the money can be found. Is it his view that it should come out of the national income? There has been a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite in speeches and comments both in the House and outside and in newspaper articles to say that money for social benefits should come not from the tax payer but perhaps from the private individual. In the course of the debate, we have heard the word "State" used as if it is a rather impolite expression, and we have heard continual references to the responsibility of the private individual.
I should like hon. Members opposite to clarify their position. Do they really want people to pay for their National Health Service treatment at all and, if so, can they say for what aspects of it they wish them to pay? In this debate, when we are discussing retirement pensioners, we have heard it suggested that even they might make some contribution to their upkeep.
Do members of the Conservative Party support the latest British Medical Association proposals that we must tend towards payment in a National Health Service? Even more important, we should like to know whether the Government support those proposals, or whether they dissociate themselves completely from them. Everything which is said about the matter is exceedingly vague. The idea is put out as a suggestion or proposition, but I feel that it will prove to be the great issue of the coming year and perhaps even the great issue between the two political parties at the next General Election. How much of the Welfare State is to be provided by the taxpayer, or is any of it, and how much, to be provided by the individual? It is a volcano that is bubbling under the surface, and I should like the Government to come out and say what they feel about it.
When we are considering the care of the elderly, perhaps one of the reasons why we do not see a huge turn-out of hon. Members is that the subject has no glamour. If a miraculous cure for old

age were discovered, geriatrics would achieve some sort of glamour in the eyes of the nurses who take it up and the doctors and other people who look after the aged.
I refute the suggestion that relatives are not caring for their old people as much as they used to. Last year, some research was carried out in Edinburgh. I will not go into detailed statistics, but it shows clearly that relatives still care for their old people as much as before. It has nothing to do with the Welfare State or with any other explanation. They are as keen as ever to see that old people are cared for as well as possible, be it in their own homes or in local authority homes.
It is not easy for relatives to get rid of old persons who are in their homes. According to some hon. Members, a relative can simply ask his family doctor to put his father or mother in a geriatric bed or in an old people's home. Everyone knows that family doctors themselves find it increasingly hard to obtain a geriatric bed or a place in a home for an old person. They have to persuade the authorities that perhaps there are no relatives to look after the old person, and the greatest chance of getting someone into one of these places is if he or she is living alone. Such a person comes at the top of the list.
We really should think more of the difficulties of the relatives themselves, and that is why I give my strong support to opportunities for relatives to go on holiday and take a rest from looking after old people by more beds or places in homes being made available for old people for two weeks in the summer.
The burden of this care is always on the woman. Except for the doctors who look after old people in hospitals, it is invariably the woman in the home who does this job. It is the female relative in the family who has this burden, and quite often it is a single woman. We have debated the problems of single women with dependent relatives, and, fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to help. It is the women who are the home helps, the health visitors, and who, as members of the W.V.S., run meals-on-wheels services. In the hospitals, the job is carried out predominantly by female nurses.

Dr. David Kerr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that she is doing a grave injustice to a large number of male nurses, in both geriatric and mental hospitals, who look after old people, and many men who, as devoted sons, make themselves responsible for their parents? I allow my hon. Friend 99 per cent. of her case, but I hope she will pay tribute to the remaining 1 per cent.

Dr. Summerskill: I still say that it is predominantly the women who wash their relatives, keep them clean, change the sheets, and do all the work in the home. I said that it was predominantly the women nurses who looked after old people in hospitals.
Here I put in a word for their pay and conditions of work to be improved. This is perhaps a matter for disagreement, but one tends to think that because they are women, they can be exploited in some way. The average wage of a woman is only just over half that of a man, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether an increase in remuneration would not make a great difference to recruitment to all these services which care for the elderly.
I support my right hon. Friend's suggestion to set up psychogeriatric units, and I would like to mention a figure which perhaps he was not able to give to the House, namely, that 24 per cent. of old people were misplaced in mental hospitals in the sense that their illnesses were mainly or entirely physical, while 34 per cent. were misplaced in geriatric units because their illnesses were mainly or entirely mental. Here we have a situation in which, at the beginning of their treatment, they were put into the wrong category, and therefore an enormous difficulty was created at the beginning.
I have dealt shortly with the tremendous shortage of all the local authority services which old people so desperately need, but nobody during the debate has mentioned a great factor among old people, and that is loneliness. However many meals on wheels and home helps they have, however hard-working the health visitor, old people living alone, or even with relatives, can be exceedingly lonely, and only human company can overcome this. I am glad that there

is a movement among young people nowadays to try to alleviate this loneliness. Many of them are making a point of visiting old people—and adults, too, are doing this—because this is a great problem among the elderly.
As my right hon. Friend, and also my predecessor, now the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), told the House, many old people's homes have modern amenities unlike the institutions about which one reads in Dickens' books. In Halifax there are homes in which each old person has his or her own bed-sitting room. An old person can have complete independence and privacy when he requires it, and there are facilities for light cooking. When he wants company, he can go downstairs and sit in a general common room which is equipped with television, and there is a warden who runs the home. It is this sort of thing which has removed the fear of many people about old people's homes. If, even 10 years ago, it was suggested to a patient that he should go to a home, it was obvious he would almost prefer to die in his own home than go away. But now the whole atmosphere of these homes has altered.
There are growing up in the country many private homes for which the State has no responsibility, and, just as we are concerned about children in care, so we should be concerned about old people in care, because it is possible that these private homes are inflicting deprivations on, or neglecting old people without us knowing anything about it. Perhaps some registration or inspection of these homes should be enforced.

Mr. K. Robinson: I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that two or three years ago the House passed legislation which gave local authorities the power of inspection in private nursing homes of this kind.

Dr. Summerskill: A further point to which I would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is that not every area in the country can be considered in the same way when one is trying to decide how many geriatric beds are required. For instance, in the West Riding of Yorkshire there is a far larger percentage of people of retirement age than there is in many other parts of the country, and this must be taken into


account when deciding how many beds are necessary. Similarly, in the West Riding, of which I am speaking particularly, a far greater number of women go cut to work than do in many other parts of the country, and if we say to someone, "I want you to try to look after your relative yourself", we must remember that the factors involved vary from one part of the country to another.
I conclude by making a few recommendations which I hope will be considered. I think that there is a good case for a hospital Ombudsman. I do not regret that hospitals are not included among the duties of our present Ombudsman, because this would perhaps be too great a burden for him to carry along with his other duties, but a man, or woman, whose sole responsibility was to act as a hospital Ombudsman would I think, be a great help in settling the doubts, the fears, and the inquiries which so often arise when we are considering the National Health Service.
We all want to see an improvement in the status of nurses, doctors and everyone connected with geriatrics. I think that the Government will improve the situation by means of the recommendations which were made at the beginning of the debate. I do not at the moment support the idea of inspectors of hospitals, on the same lines as factory inspectors, who would just drop in at any hour of the day or night and presumably walk round inspecting the premises, but it may be that some other method of inspection can be found. A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the National Health Service, both in the Press and in speeches, and there has been a tendency to imply that because the Health Service is free, people take it for granted and try to exploit it. The Health Service should not be afraid of this criticism, but I would like to see more people patting themselves on the back because we have this Service, and giving more support to it than is the case at the moment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we can call everybody who wishes to catch my eye in this debate if speeches are reasonably brief.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) accounted for the rather poor attendance in this debate by saying that the subject had not very much glamour. I agree, but it is one of the most important social subjects of our time. It is a difficult subject for hon. Members who have no practical experience of the problems of the old and do not have the professional qualifications for dealing with their medical problems. On the other hand, it is important for all hon. Members to know something about this matter and to be able to deal from time to time with cases in their constituencies.
I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that there should be old people's officers. In a large, mixed rural or industrial constituency like mine this would be very helpful. From time to time one hears complaints about old people living alone in circumstances which cause one a certain amount of anxiety, and it would be helpful to be able to contact an old people's officer in an emergency.
For example, as they gradually decline some old people become rather eccentric and even rather dangerous. Some are a danger to themselves and other people because they are apt to light fires. There are examples of old people throwing paraffin on fires, to the constant danger of other people in a row of cottages. These cases are difficult to deal with if someone is not present who specialises in them.
We might also compile a register of people over the age of 85 who have no pensions from the State. The right hon. Gentleman knows about this question, and he will also know that I shall take the opportunity to pursue it on every occasion. It is a disgrace to the country that there should be so many people who have no form of social benefit from the State.
In my view it is not merely a question of allowing old people to be sent to hospitals and homes because there is no other place for them. I support what has been said by other hon. Members, and especially what the hon. Member


for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) said about the work of voluntary organisations. My constituency contains several voluntary organisations which run old people's homes. One of the problems facing them at the moment—and it seems to be a substantial problem—is that the buildings themselves are often placed in areas which present a certain amount of danger from traffic. In my constituency, near Wallingford, there is a dangerous corner which old people have to use in order to go to the post office to draw their pensions—if they are allowed to do so, being under the age of 85.
I spoke to the Ministry of Transport today and discovered that there are no regulations prescribing signs concerning old people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this fact, because we are reaching a stage at which something must be done about the problem. We have prescribed signs for racehorses and level crossings, but when very old people are crossing roads at what are known to be dangerous points it is very difficult for county councils to obtain permission from the Minister of Transport to erect any kind of sign, even a warning sign. We have signs for blind and crippled people crossing the road, and I should like to know whether it really is not possible for somebody to think up an eye-catching sign to warn motorists that there is an old people's home in the vicinity of a dangerous corner. This is not a constituency point; it must occur in many parts of the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Minister of Transport about it.
I want to refer to the book, "Sans Everything". It is important that we should be objective about the statements made in the book. I want first to deal with the suggestion of an inspectorate of mental hospitals. We should be told a little more about this. The hon. Member for Halifax said that it would not be much good if we had inspectors going round at odd hours of the day, as factory inspectors do. The suggestion has been made in a letter to the Sunday Times that officials could go round disguised as patients and stay in these places for a month in order to discover what happens in them. I thought that that was a slightly

frivolous suggestion, and that it is was not likely to provide very good results. But some form of investigation system is required in the event of information being supplied to the Minister which gives him reason to believe that there is cause for inquiry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurances with respect to nurses who had made complaints. I am glad that they will be protected. It is important that nurses should not inhibited from supplying the names of persons complained about. Apparently they have not been satisfied with the National Health Service inquiry procedure on this point. I wonder whether there is a need for reform. I should think there is. It is important that the Minister should be able to ensure that anybody who makes a complaint which is found to be justified should not suffer on that account.
I should like to know what form of inspection takes place at present. Under the Mental Health Act the commissioners used to go round. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member may recall that it was his own Government who abolished the board of control which used to carry out this function before the passage of the Mental Health Act. The responsibility lies with the managers of hospitals, regional hospital boards and hospital management committees. The responsibility was transferred by this House under the hon. Member's Government.

Mr. Neave: Is that an answer to my questions? There are many old people's homes about which one could make no complaint. I hope that the effect which the Minister fears will not lead to any lessening in recruitment, because the provision of these services will be more important in the future. Much more emphasis should be placed on the independence of old people and the prevention of hospitalisation. In this connection I support the idea of the conversion of houses and the need for a system of grants and tax reliefs. It should be possible to convert houses for this purpose and to devise a system whereby relatives can apply for a grant


for the purpose. This would be widely welcomed.
It is not true that all families want to drive out their elderly relatives. It is often a question of physical space, or family economics. In certain European countries it has always been the custom for the old people to live with their families. There again, any problem that has arisen has concerned the physical space available to the family. In our future house building programmes we should make serious provision for this.
In general, I agree that this will need a great deal more money, and there is no question that this extra money should be provided. The immediate problem is to investigate conditions in old people's homes and to deal with some of the constructive suggestions made from both sides today. This will lead to alleviation of conditions, but the long-term policy must be to help relatives to house old people and to provide hospital and home places on the basis of physical or mental need rather than simply providing accommodation.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: One of the disadvantages for hon. Members with a special interest in health matters is that we get few opportunities to discuss them, but one of the advantages is that whenever we do a lively sympathy and understanding is shown in all quarters of the House and this debate has been no exception.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) drew attention to the very important subject of the siting of residential homes for the elderly. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to retain the amenities even if one is selected which is convenient for those who will occupy it. In my constituency there is one of the first-class types of residential accommodation mentioned by my hon. and qualified Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), called Ellerslie, which is in an ideal situation. It is in a quiet road but this very factor has encouraged driving instructors to use it for training learner drivers thus causing hazards for elderly people crossing the road and for traffic.
My right hon. Friend dealt with the question of inspection raised by the hon.

Member, and I would underline the point he made. The hospital management committees have a responsibility not just to attend meetings but also to be fully aware of what happens in their hospitals. Nowhere is this more essential than in the geriatric wards. I would commend to hon. Members the Christmas visit to a geriatric ward as one of the heart-warming experiences which gives considerable pleasure, especially to elderly ladies, particularly if, like the hon. and qualified Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), one takes one's bedside manner and a little mistletoe. This can give comfort to the people there. May I say that the hon. Member's experience was reflected in his very constructive speech.
One of his points which the Minister should consider related to the training of people who have domiciliary care of their elderly parents. There is every facility through the local education authority, under the Further Education facilities, for such courses and there is no reason why that should not be done. The facilities and opportunities are there and I hope that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's welcome suggestion, my right hon. Friend will discuss this with the Secretary of State for Education in order to plan this provision.
Another theme of the debate has been the problems created by tripartite administration of the National Health Service, which in this field and that of mental health is at its most awkward. The care of the elderly comes under three administrations, which means that one cannot consolidate or move freely from one sector to another in the way which we would like in this day and age. We all welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that it is now possible to appoint a geriatrician to the local health authority and the hospital service on a joint sharing arrangement, but this is not half enough.
At the last census, more than 4,000 elderly people in my borough each lived alone in one room. All these people are under the care of the general practitioner and there is, therefore, an urgent need to develop combined operations between the G.P., the local health authority and the hospital geriatric services, if there is to be effective coverage of the needs of the elderly. I would welcome a little experimentation by my right hon. Friend in this regard.
Surely it is possible to try out not just the co-ordinating and liaison services which already exist in many areas, but to have prototypes of a service for the elderly to which all three sectors would contribute, but with more freedom and autonomy, away from the controlling influence of each, to see whether a service for the elderly would be possible drawing comprehensively on all three, which at the moment are administered and financed separately.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the new charter for general practitioners facilitates the provision of the necessary ancillary help for the family doctor. Under the present load of work, G.P.s cannot do all the visiting and give all the time that the elderly people on their lists need. Only with ancillary medical aides and social welfare workers attached to G.P.s can the necessary coverage be given. I urge my right hon. Friend to go further than the present provision which encourages a G.P. to employ ancillary service and ask him positively to promote the "extra pair of hands" which are so urgently needed to cope with the personal services of a family doctor to all his patients, the elderly as well as the young.
On the subject of loneliness, I would commend the system which exists in some towns but which was pioneered in Cambridge, known as "Fish", whereby people of good will are able to know, by means of a sign in the window, that the elderly need help perhaps to collect medicine, have errands run and even just to be talked to. People see the sign of the fish and knock on the door and ask if they can help. In Cambridge they have developed a large group of voluntary workers to do this. It is mainly elderly people who need to be visited because they are most in need of that kind of care. I would commend this scheme to people of good will who want to help and ask them to organise it.
The tragedy of the pockets of unhappiness and loneliness in our Welfare State is that no one knows. One hon. Member referred to the "little boxes" in which we live, and it is true that there may be more misery for one elderly person living alone in a road and about whom no one knows than in previous days when misery was more widespread. After the cold spell two or three years ago, an elderly

lady was brought in to my local hospital after she had been dead for several days with a temperature of 72 degrees. This can happen not because people are heartless or unwilling to help, but because they just do not know. They pass by the house and the door is closed. I hope, therefore, that the attention given to this subject in the debate will result in a little more organisation of good will and voluntary service.
The excellent work of the meals on wheels service has been mentioned. I had the privilege of going out with the W.V.S. in my area and calling on the elderly people using that service. But still in my area we cannot give a comprehensive service. We give a service on so many days a week only. It should be possible today to give a comprehensive service so that at least one hot meal a day is provided for every elderly person living alone and needing it.
I pay tribute to the tremendous amount which has already been done. In the past year, an increase of 1 million more meals is recorded in the report to the nation for 1966 by the Ministry of Health. Last year, a total of 7,300,000 meals for elderly people living at home, and a further 1,400,000 meals were served in lunch clubs. A great job is being done.
I have every sympathy for my right hon. Friend in his task as Minister of Health. It always seems that good news is no news. But the moment that something comes up which gives an opportunity to have a slam at the Health Service, to have a slam at the hospitals, at the nurses or at anyone else, it makes headline news. The fact remains, however, that tremendous advances have been made—I commend to hon. Members the 1966 Report, which has only just been issued—and all manner of services have been stepped up and enlarged in spite of the financial difficulties which the nation has faced.
Last year, 128 new homes for elderly people were provided, giving accommodation for a further 5,777. It is not enough, of course, but at least we are making an inroad into the problem. Some commendation should be given for the tremendous work which is going on, and thanks should be offered to those who take part in it.
Through "senior citizens" clubs, the local health authorities are doing a great


deal in giving a looking-forward approach to elderly people rather than living in the past. I have no doubt that this has made a tremendous difference in the lives of many people in my constituency. They look forward to going out and to meeting people next week instead of just dwelling on the past, and this gives a further lease of life to many elderly citizens. Perhaps I may tell the House, as an example, of the sort of incident which warms my heart. At my "surgery" a few weeks back, I had to listen to one of the usual marital problems about which Members of Parliament are consulted. Most hon. Members have to hear about these things. One listens. One cannot do very much, but at least one gives a sympathetic ear. After I had been listening for about twenty minutes, the lady who was telling me of her trouble said, "You must realise that we are not geting any younger. It is true that my husband is running after this other woman, but I am 69 and he is 72, so that it is a very difficult circumstance for me". I am delighted that, in 1967, we have reached a stage when people can look forward to a bit of "chasing"—even if it is not something in a mini-skirt—and at that sort of age people are not losing their interest in all that, perhaps, makes life a little attractive.
A great deal has been done for the hard-of-hearing, which is of particular benefit to the elderly. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the provision last year of 48,224 more hearing aids. We are nearly reaching the million mark now in the provision of hearing aids free of charge to people who need them. Credit should be given to the Department for this. Incidentally, last year another 4½ million pairs of spectacles were issued under the National Health Service. This sort of news gets no headlines, but, when we recall how elderly people used to go to Woolworths to get their spectacles, we can appreciate how important the service is and take real pride in it.
I urge my right hon. Friend to take up with the Postmaster-General the question of providing elderly people who need them with transistorised telephones. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I have managed to have installed in this building 12 transistorised telephones for the benefit of hon. Members who, like my-

self, have a hearing disability. I am surprised to find how many of my elderly colleagues do not know where they are. But they are here. This simple provision in a home which has a telephone and where there is an elderly person who is hard of hearing can make all the difference to the contact which the elderly person can make and keep with the outside world. There is no point in elderly people having the telephone installed if all that they can get out of it are crackles and bangs every time they try to listen and to talk to their friends. This apparatus is available, and we could provide it.
The previous Government, under a certain amount of pressure from my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister and myself, brought down the extra charge for these telephones. I believe that it would be possible to bring the charge down even further, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make representations to the Postmaster-General in that regard.
There has been some advance in the chiropody service, but it is still not wide enough. The idea of foot trouble always seems a little ludicrous—one remembers the jokes in Punch about old people and their corns—but, in fact, the chiropody service can make all the difference in whether a person goes out instead of staying indoors. If their feet are "killing" them, elderly people do not go out. The way in which the local health authorities have laid on the provision of this service and the way in which the chiropodists themselves, through their professional association, have raised standards has been a great help. I hope that the Ministry will give thought to expanding the service and giving more incentives to it in order that it may become comprehensive.
The hon. Member for Cheadle feels that there is no need for further research into the subject of care itself because we know the problems, we know the hazards, and we know the way in which the organisation can be improved in order to give our elderly citizens the best possible life in the community. Nevertheless, in my view, the Medical Research Council gives insufficient attention to the whole subject of gerontology. The more we can do in this field to prevent the ageing process, the more we shall be


able to relieve my right hon. Friend of a great many of the problems he has to face in meeting and treating the conditions which develop after the ageing process sets in. Unfortunately, the Medical Research Council seems to concentrate on financing favourites. If it has a line of inquiry which seems likely to yield results, it gives priority of expenditure to that. So far, the subject of gerontology has not received the attention which it deserves, having regard to the large proportion of the community which can now be classed as senior and the way in which, over the next five or ten years, the number of people falling into that category will phenomenally increase.
The debate has docussed attention upon one of the problems which we all accept as our responsibility. This is not a job which we pass on to this or that Department, to the local health authority or to the medical officer of health. The problem is ours. We have done our duty today in all parts of the House in directing the maximum amount of constructive thought and attention to the problem and bringing the maximum pressure on the Government to provide the extras which are needed. But more must be done if the job is to be really effective. If we are to regard ourselves as a civilised nation at all, we must devote a greater proportion to our resources, our time and our effort not just in the institutions and organisations but in the streets and apartments in which we live. This is where care of the aged starts, where they are. This, I know, is the task to which hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today will give their best endeavours in order that it may have the attention which it deserves.

7.18 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I wish to direct attention to this subject somewhat from a constituency standpoint, and to tell the House of a personal experience which has a great bearing on it. The House always appreciates personal experiences.
My interest in hospitals started when I was a member of the Ipswich Borough Council and when, in my twenties, I was chairman of the mental hospital committee. I speak here from experience in a large and scattered rural constituency.

The great change I have seen in the post-war years has been in the way we have been able to make enormous improvements to old-fashioned buildings.
There are three old people's hospitals in my constituency, two of which would once have been called the Union or a Poor Law institution. When I first went round them 20 years ago they were very unpleasant-looking buildings, and one was very nearly condemned. If we have not built all the new general hospitals we need, we have certainly so modernised these old people's hospitals in my part of East Anglia that they are now very good. It is a joy and almost a pride to see them. Lifts have been installed, floors, ceilings and walls have been renovated from scratch, and a great deal of money has been spent. The hospitals' whole condition has changed out of all recognition.
Thanks to the science of geriatrics and the doctors, the average age of the old people in those hospitals has risen by seven to 10 years since I first went round them. Possibly we fell into a misconception when the National Health Service was introduced and our hospitals were taken over in thinking that the State would do everything. This has been proved entirely wrong. It has never been more necessary than to have Leagues of Friends, the W.V.S. and other voluntary help in our hospital service. Like the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I make visits to the hospitals at Christmas, when the wards are all decorated, and I should like to think that my visits have the same tonic effects as his.
The shops on wheels service may not matter so much in the towns, but to a hospital in the country a long way from shops it is very useful. Another problem when a hospital is some way from a town is that it is often very difficult for relatives to visit patients except by car. I often spend time in trying to get patients moved from a hospital in one part of my constituency to another, perhaps 30 miles away, so that they are nearer their relatives, because visiting is good in helping them to enjoy the remainder of their lives. In days gone by it would have been true to say that old people went into hospitals thinking that they could lie comfortably in bed until they were


gathered to another life. But this is no longer so.
I too pay tribute to the male nurses in the hospitals. I am very impressed by what they do and their sympathetic attitude, as well as by the younger girl nurses. They carry out their work with great enthusiasm, but it is an additional strain to have to get the old people up and dress them.
When old people are looked after at home I try to encourage them to go into a hospital or old people's home for three or four weeks in the year to give their relatives a break. In East Suffolk we have now started three old people's homes for elderly people who are not sick enough to go into old people's hospitals. This is carrying out our duty to the elderly.
But I am not so satisfied on the private side. We have a long way to go, and there seems to be an enormous gap between what the State does and what the private nursing homes do. I believe that they relieve the State of the burden of a certain number of older people who would otherwise have to enter State hospitals when we are short of space. In the future we shall have to consider making some form of grant to private homes. Perhaps it should not be so much as the cost of keeping a patient in the State home, but it should perhaps be £5 a week where the total cost is £10, £12, £15 or £20 a week.
The personal experience about which I should like to tell the House concerns the will of an uncle of mine who was a clergyman in the Church of England with no children. He died in about 1930 and left £4,000, after various relatives had received a life interest. About three years ago I had to distribute that money among the poor of London and Northampton under the terms of the will. My uncle was once a curate at Northampton, but he spent a lot of time abroad.
The first problem was that poverty no longer existed in this country in the sense that he had known it early in the century. I therefore decided that roughly anyone who received what was then National Assistance would qualify to receive some of the money. Some societies tried to get me to give the £4,000 for a home, but I did not think that that was my uncle's intention. He wanted to help a large

number of people. I had heard in the House of generals' widows living on National Assistance, but when I inquired from their societies about these wives and widows of clergymen in that position, I could not find any that were in real need.
Then I had what I thought was quite a bright idea. I wrote to the officers in charge of National Assistance in certain parts of London and in Northampton, and I received invaluable assistance from them. I asked if they could prepare for me a list of people who had been good citizens, craftsmen and so on, who were now retired, perhaps prematurely owing to sickness but largely because of old age, and who were now having a difficult time. They prepared the lists and I agreed with them what would be a worth-while sum that would not affect the amount the recipients drew under National Assistance. We came to the conclusion that it would be right to give £35 to a married couple and £20 to a single person.
I visited a large number of these people and there was no doubt, as hon. Members have said, that loneliness was their worst difficulty. They were not necessarily short of food, although perhaps their diet was a little dull. Most of them had a wireless, if not a television, and more often than not the television had been given by some of their children.
I learned a tremendous amount. It was a humbling experience to go to all their homes. Many of the people concerned were rather fearful when I knocked at the door. They did not get many visitors; some told me that they had not had a visitor for six months or longer. I explained most carefully, in order not to upset them, that I was trying to help. I had to ask them certain questions, such as whether they had lived in London or in Northampton most of their lives and could be called citizens of those places. Having established that, I found that the amount of money proposed was a real godsend to them.
I also came to the conclusion that a married couple who had lived together for years and had had their happy times and, perhaps, argued at least had each other to talk to or shout at if one was deaf, or read to if one was a little blind.
At least they had each other's company. The person for whom I was most sorry was the person living alone—the elderly widow or perhaps even more the elderly spinster. A man living alone seems more able to go out. I think particularly of elderly persons who are incapacitated and hardly able to move. They may have a help coming in to clean up and perhaps cook for them, but when the door shuts on that person no one else comes to talk to them.
I always felt after that experience that I might at some time be able to say in this House that we should do all we can in future for the person living alone. Married couples have larger pensions and supplements—not exactly double—but I feel that a person living alone needs a little extra spending money simply because he or she is alone and has no one visiting. This is where the meals-on-wheels service plays a part, because the old people like to see those bringing their meals. My wife is one of those engaged in this voluntary service, and I have heard her speak about it.
There are more lonely people in London and the bigger cities than perhaps in the rural parts of my constituency, and in respect of these people it is the voluntary side that matters so very much. In our legislation we must always think of the person who is alone. One of the things that strikes me these days is the kindness of people visiting old persons. One of the delights of the present age is the new spirit of the young, who give up a year or two years at the beginning of their career, perhaps after leaving university, to do voluntary service helping the old or sick in this country and other countries abroad.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say, as I have always wanted to say, what a great experience this was. I was very embarrassed at times as I was thanked, but it was my uncle and not me who deserved the thanks. I was also struck by the tremendous honesty of the old people. Many of them asked whether the grant would affect their National Assistance allowance; I was always able to reassure them. One might think that people getting a gift like that would not wonder whether they had to report it or not. But I was struck by

the very great honesty of the old people, many of whom had perhaps been treated a bit hardly during their life in that they were earning at a time when wages were lower and their savings had been hit by inflation.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I agree very much with the remarks by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). I am sure that he is right in pointing to loneliness rather than poverty as one of the severest problems that we have to deal with. It is seldom that I find myself applauding remarks made on the other side of the House. So perhaps I may take this rare opportunity to say that I also agreed with some of the remarks in the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) when she referred to our attitude towards the problem of the elderly. What she said was just and true.
I have two things to say about concessions to the elderly, and I am afraid that both of them are critical. First, I would refer to the relationship, or, as it seems to me, lack of relationship, between the basic pension granted to our senior citizens and the concessions of one kind and another available to them. There does not seem to be any just balance between them; from time to time when one goes up the other seems to go down.
The other day I had a letter from a constituent whose name is Wilson. I mention that because in a moment I shall be referring to something that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and, though my constituent has the same name, he does not have the same views. My constituent wrote a letter headed "This is a complaint." He noted with pleasure the Government's proposal to effect an increase in the pension that he is receiving, but he noted with a great deal of displeasure that at almost the same time he received a note saying that the charge made to him for home help service would be increased by 1s. an hour. The effect of this is that the forthcoming increase in pension will half disappear before he gets it. My constituent finds this sort of attitude inexplicable, and I do not well know how I can justify it to him.
Next, I question whether some of the concessions are entirely desirable. The


Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have made arrangements in some cases to provide travel concessions for elderly people, and there has been a great deal of applause for that. But I wonder whether they are aware that concessions are not always entirely well received by the old people for whom they are intended. In recent months, I have visited old people's clubs in my constituency and have always taken the occasion to ask as I move around what their reaction is to the concept of concessions for elderly people.
The reactions vary. Some old people certainly welcome concessions. But on the whole the reaction has been adverse. Statements made to me indicate that old people would rather have the value in cash than a concession made available to them on production of a pension book because it appears to them that there is some detraction from a man's dignity if he has to produce a pension book for a concession. They would rather be able to stand on their own feet and pay the full charges on equal terms with other people without any detraction from their dignity through having to appeal for a concession. After I had spoken on this subject at one club an old man told me that I was the first person he had heard who really understood what he felt about the concept of travel concessions.
I wonder why we are inclined to provide concessions for elderly people in this way as though our senior citizens were something separate from us. They are us and we are going to become them. What is this blindness that seems to afflict us and make us suppose that old age is something that will happen to somebody else and not us? We should do well to remember that we shall all become old. We shall become crotchety, frail, confused and incontinent. The people to whom these things happen are not a separate race; they are us.
I regret the increasing tendency to try to solve the problem of elderly people by packing them away in old people's homes. The Minister of Health referred to the feelings of guilt that we may have about putting people away in that fashion. He may have something there. But I do not think that the provision of these homes is enough.
Of course we need to provide them, and indeed, should go further and provide more. I am among those who think that greater and additional provision for our senior citizens is desirable and that those financial provisions should have a greater degree of priority than they do. But I do not think that money in itself is enough. My hon. Friend the Member for for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) suggested that money was the problem. I agree that it is a problem but I am not sure that it is the major problem.
At present we are providing more and more funds for the police forces and yet it is no great exaggeration to say that we are encountering more and more lawlessness. I suspect the reason to be that the provision of police forces causes people, when they see hooliganism or vandalism, to turn aside and pretend that they do not see it because it is up to the police to deal with it. I submit that there is a parallel danger that, the more old people's homes we provide, the more callous our society may become by thinking that the problem of old people is something to be dealt with by the authorities or at any rate by someone else and not by us. I am not sure how it comes about that we have this society in which there seems to be no place for our senior citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, in rebutting the point of view I am putting forward, remarked that it is not easy to find a place for an old person in an old people's home. I think that is true. But the point is that, in many cases, old people are not living with their relatives but are living alone and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Eye said, the problem of loneliness is one that we must deal with.
It must be a condemnation of our kind of society that there seems to be no place for our senior citizens in it and that relatively little value is placed upon their lives when they reach retirement. In many cases they have nothing to do but to sit around waiting for the end. If I am not using too harsh a phrase, this is the problem of the "redundant grandmother". There are many laidies, not necessarily in poverty, who are living alone.
I wonder how far this may be due to the great emphasis placed nowadays on rights to the exclusion of duties. When I was small, my mother looked after me. It was her duty and my right. Now she is old, I should look after her. That is her right and my duty. Rights and duties go together, and we have a duty to look after our elderly people. I accept that rights are inherent in each of us but it should constantly be remembered that rights are meaningless without duties.
I believe that I am right in saying that this particular problem, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), is not found to the same extent in other countries because, there, grandmother or grand- father is still a valued member of the family and is still found living with the family and not alone because the children have moved away.
I had the pleasure of visiting an old people's home on Christmas day. It is a purpose-built home, well built and with a friendly atmosphere. The old people living there each have their own little room with a small stove on which they can "brew up". There is a communal dining room and a communal living room. The warden and his wife are pleasant, friendly people and everything possible that could be done was clearly being done. Yet there was one old man whose grand-nephew was due to call for him at 1 p.m. to take him away to spend the rest of Christmas with the family. At noon the old gentleman was ready, fully dressed and with hat and coat on, waiting outside because, however nice the home, it could not compare with being with his own family. He could not wait inside. He had to be outside for his relatives when they came.
I am sorry that we seem to have a society where elderly people are no longer with their relatives, as they used to be. I wonder whether this is a problem not only for the Ministry of Health but also for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. How nice it would be if houses were built in such a way that elderly people could live in a partly detached or semi-detached flat in the same building as their family so that they would be separate yet close to the family in case assistance was needed. I should

like to see this sort of thing develop but we do not seem to build houses in that way.
Elderly people can be a great nuisance, but so can babies. It is accepted that babies are a nuisance and we do not feel it necessary to stash them away somewhere else. I regret that we seem to find it necessary, however, to put our old people away in old people's homes. I hope that it is not too harsh a phrase but I wonder whether this debate would not be better answered by the Department of Education and Science rather than by the Ministry of Health because, I wonder whether we have not a great deal to do in educating ourselves to accept the fact that old age is something that we must accept and which we cannot just shuffle off on to someone else to deal with; because it is something which will happen to us all.

7.47 p.m.

Sir John Eden: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) spoke with a great deal of feeling and, as he proceeded, I found myself agreeing in full with the philosophy he was expounding. When he ended by suggesting that perhaps education was called for and that the Department of Education and Science might be involved, I felt that he touched on a very valid point. But what I think is needed perhaps more than education is a development of consideration for others, and it is this lack of consideration, which is so manifest in the treatment of old people that one finds at almost every turn, which is one of the regrettable factors of the present day.
I do not know whether it is more so than it was before, but it is certainly so today. On almost every turn, people do not show enough consideration for other people's feelings, other people's particular whims or the situation in which they may happen to find themselves.
The Minister of Health was right to approach this question of the book "Sans Everything" with a great deal of objectivity. He is right to be cautious about the generalised nature of the charge. But I hope that he will not allow this caution to lead to a whitewashing operation. Perhaps I can emphasise, even overemphasise, the other side to this in drawing attention to my hope that he will not brush these charges under the carpet.
It is easy for all of us to say, "This sort of thing cannot happen. People are not as inhuman as all this", and because we cannot find a specific charge or have the evidence brought to us of a particular case, believe it cannot exist. I beg the Minister to treat these charges very seriously indeed, because I can well understand how this sort of situation can arise.
I know of no special case which I would wish to instance and which would warrant further detailed examination, but I understand the sort of circumstances which could lead to situations such as are described in this book. It often starts with the necessary firm handling in a nursing home or hospital where the staff are caring for elderly people. This firm handling is necessary, in the first instance, to give assurance to the people in the home, but it could sometimes so easily become bossy and unnecessarily harsh and, unless the person in the position of responsibility is extremely careful, it could become a considerable form of tyranny. I emphasise again that I do not know of instances where it has happened, but I believe it can happen. I take this book very seriously indeed and I hope that the Minister will, too.
It is very easy for people who live and have to work with it to become callous of any sort of human failing or physical ailment. For those of us who come to it from outside at the odd moment in our lives it is horrifying and upsetting and we are completely dismayed and put off our stroke by what we see, because we do not know how to deal with the situation. However, those who see this daily become acclimatised to the pain, grief and agony of particular situations and— I do not know—it is just possible that on occasions they may go over the boundary and become unnecessarily bar, callous and insensitive in their treatment.
This is something that needs to be examined. I do not know how the Minister will go about it. Sometimes when a great person, such as the Minister, visits a particular hospital or home he is given the red carpet treatment. I can 'quite understand that. I remember that when I was in the Army we went to the extreme of white washing lumps of coal to make them attractive and smart. Things used to be cleaned up which had never been touched for years.
Yesterday I went with the Minister of Transport on a very pleasant inaugural trip, which took rather longer than we expected, on the new electrified line to my own constituency, Bournemouth, West. That station was beautiful—the whole place was swept, there were pots of hydrangeas, and all the rest of it—and it was quite right that it should have been, because this was a great and special occasion. The visit of the Minister, apart from anything else, was an important event.
I am sure that the Minister is too old a hand at this game to allow that sort of thing to kid him. Therefore, I hope that a process of inspection will be arranged which will not be the much trumpeted and much heralded approach of the "big noise", but will be the unannounced, almost back door, visit of someone who knows what to look for, knows how to see through the veneer and facade, and will be attuned to the situation that he or she is examining.
I am glad that we are discussing the care of the elderly, as it is called, because the number of old and retired people is increasing annually. This is something that we have to face up to, and an increasingly serious matter is how we will be able to find sufficient resources in the years ahead to provide for the needs of the growing number of people who will become dependent upon that amount of wealth generated by the proportionately smaller band of productive workers.
In many respects this is a good debate to follow on the one which concluded in the early hours of this morning when, on the Prices and Incomes Bill, we were talking about the need for productivity and how to identify productivity wage increases; Only through increasing productivity will we get increasing national prosperity out of which we will be able to, finance the increasing, demands of services such as .those we are considering today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst who said that money is not everything. How right he is. Money directly applied to the individual is not everything, but money spent sometimes in a different form—in the provision of central facilities—can be of considerable value. In this regard I refer to the


establishment of a day centre in Bournemouth. This is a new event for my constituency, though it is by no means new for the country as a whole. There are other comparable centres in other parts of the country which have already been introduced, although not exactly identical.
Three weeks ago, at a cost of £25,000, Bournemouth introduced its first day centre. This is in addition to the 17 residential home for elderly people, which it already provides, giving a total of 700 beds. The Minister of Health was a very welcome visitor to Bournemouth not so very long ago and I know that he will endorse what I say about it, because I would not like it to be thought that this is a wholly biassed testimony on my part.
This day centre is a tremendously important advance, because people have gone out of their way to be imaginative in the provision which has been made for the needs of elderly people. Interestingly, it is designed primarily not for old people —this might sound like a contradiction—but with the needs of the younger families in mind. It is designed with the thought that there must be some means by which the working couple or the individual is enabled to carry on working in the sure knowledge that the elderly dependent relative is being properly cared for. This is a slightly different emphasis from that which has been given. So far we have been dealing with the laggard child, the son or daughter-in-law, who is not fulfilling his or her responsibilities, and, as a result, the elderly relative is neglected and lonely. For example, a school teacher may not feel happy about carrying on her job teaching in a school if, in doing so, she has to leave her elderly mother completely alone at home. The establishment of this centre gives her the opportunity to take her elderly mother, or whoever it may be, to this place for the daytime while she herself is at work. She can know that her relative will be properly cared for and looked after. It is interesting to see how much is being done.
The main thing is that proper meals are provided. Elderly people left on their own often cannot be bothered to go to all the trouble of making a meal, but with the establishment of this day centre meals are available for which old people pay half a crown a time for a full meal and less for snacks in the course of the day.

This is an important factor in the avoidance of malnutrition, which is one of the dangers attendant upon old age.
The second most important thing is that the establishment of the day centre helps to keep some elderly people out of hospital and out of old people's homes. Were it not for the existence of a centre such as this, I have no doubt that some would have to go earlier to old people's homes or even to hospital than will now be the case.
The centre is a place not only to eat, but to meet. There is also entertainment, which meets the factor of loneliness, about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) spoke. I want to stress this aspect of entertainment. I have been around many homes outside as well as within my constituency and I have seen the difference of approach in some outside Bournemouth which have not made such progress because they have not studied the subject with such care.
One sometimes sees a roomful of elderly people seated in a semi-circle and almost immoveable and there is no doubt that there is colossal boredom. Many of the people to whom I spoke emphasised how desperately bored they were. There may be all kinds of medical reasons and I recognise that, because of advanced years, some people may find it difficult to provide their own forms of entertainment and to interest themselves sufficiently with books or other activities of that kind to escape from boredom. But the fact remains that boredom is one of the great drawbacks of old age, although it is not necessarily associated with loneliness, and it can often be found in homes and institutions. It is absolutely necessary that in places like this there should be not only the sort of activity in which the individual can indulge—dominoes, draughts, the use of a library and so on—but also communal entertainment.
This entertainment is valuable when it can be provided by other organisations in the town where the home is established. A great deal of encouragement is given to youth clubs to help in the provision of entertainment for elderly people who gather in the newly opened day centre in Bournemouth. This is a first-class and imaginative development which ought to be reflected throughout the country.
The test of this centre will come in the winter months. It is easy to talk about centres such as this in weather such as we are now having when it is gloriously warm and everybody wants to wander out and when it is a nice cosy trot across the street, but it is quite a different proposition in the bleak winter months when the wind is howling and it is raining or snowing or worse. I am glad to be able to say that the management of this project is already thinking of the provision of transport and will do its level best to ensure that those who wish to use the centre are not kept from it by fear of inclement weather.
This day centre offers a major opportunity for the future and there are already plans for opening another three in Bournemouth in the next six months and a further eight on top of that. The only snag is that they cost money and in these hard times money seems to be increasingly difficult to come by.
Much has been said about the difficulties in which people find themselves when they become old. One of their worries is that they are embarrassed by their own old age and by their own infirmity and by the condition in which they find themselves. As a result, they become nervous and confused and in their nervousness and confusion they say wholly idiotic things which they would not wish to say and do things which they do not wish to happen, so that the situation becomes worse and almost a vicious circle. This is when intolerance or impatience can make life an absolute misery for the individual.
There is also a feeling among many old people that when they reach a certain age they become something of a burden on the family and that they ought to hide themselves away. It is not always right to blame the family, which is sometimes quite ready to help, but the old person is not prepared to be helped, and I know all too well how obstinate old age can become.
One other problem is the difficulty of finding old people living by themselves, the problem of actual location. In Bournemouth the authorities have concentrated on this problem. The health, welfare and housing departments cooperate extremely closely and when a problem arises within the departmental

influence of one, it is immediately reported to the others so that there is a joint operation to try to help. It is not only just the authorities, to call them that, but also the voluntary and religious organisations who work together.
I was extremely interested by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) about what could be achieved by visiting. I have not before heard of the fish symbol in the window, but there is no doubt that teams of visitors can be valuable in helping to discover where elderly people live.
There is here a major rôle for the younger members of the community. So often we hear, possibly to the point of nausea, certainly in my case, of the extravagances of youth, of its wildness and profligacy, how inconsiderate and how curiously dressed young people are, and so on, but, as hon. Members know, young people often form clubs of whatever description the primary purpose of which is to help others in the community, and to my certain knowledge they concentrate on the needs of the elderly.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye quite rightly emphasised the voluntary factor in this way. No matter that there is a great and glorious State provision it is the voluntary organisations which can really identify individuals, which can be closely sensitive to the peculiar circumstances of the individual. It is this which should receive every positive and possible encouragement. Where there are teams of visitors, or whatever they may be called, working for this purpose in towns and boroughs, having visited a person they should make a habit of following it up. It should become a regular sequence of visits not just the occasional hit and miss affair, because once hope has been aroused it would be cruelty indeed to let it fall away.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: I have remarked before, though not publicly, the difficulty of expressing in this Chamber new and rather technical ideas and problems, be they scientific or social, educational or foreign affairs. We tend always, and I apologise if I sound irritatingly condescending, to rehearse accepted ideas. Today has been no exception. Anyone listening to this debate,


with any profound knowledge of the problems of the old, could be forgiven if they left the Chamber convinced that all that Members of Parliament knew about the care of the old was that they were lonely and had meals on wheels.
I am aware that this is a rather shorthand representation of what has been a good debate. None the less it has been a debate which has expressed more about our attitudes to growing old than about the relevant facts for the care of the old. We wrap the old up in euphemisms and expect them to stay warm in the winter. We call them senior citizens. With all respect to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), he spent a long time describing an admirable provision, the day centre, which is nothing new. It has been going on in many other areas of the country and has been explored and examined and found to be valuable, as he said.
It is a pity that this House cannot throw up more exciting and adventurous ideas. I had better be a little iconoclastic and say that if we were really expressing what I believe so many of us feel it is that old age is a squalid nuisance. That is an idea that would be accepted by anyone below the age of 105. One the one hand, old age becomes a burden to the family at a time when the family is less able to bear it comfortably. The parent becomes old as the children become middle-aged, with the problems of their own children going through a rather critical age. This is the inevitable, predictable and axiomatic result with the problem of old age, and it does something to explain why today the family finds it so difficult to contain its older members.
Why have we to confine consideration of these problems to what we call for want of a better term "the elderly"? What do we mean by elderly? Does anyone here imagine that what is written on our birth certificate has any relevance to this? Does "old" mean the same to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) as it does to an inmate of some old people's home in my constituency? Of course it does not. To talk about the elderly is to omit to say, to forget, that we are dealing with a whole mass of problems which are generally applicable to the

housebound and the dependent in a variety of ways; to the chronic sick, mentally or physically; to the mentally sick, be that due to a mental breakdown or to the mental illnesses which so often accompany old age.
We pay homage to old age, aware that we must either in the end submit to it or else face the other rotten alternative of dying young. These are some of the things that we ought to be saying about the care of the elderly. These are some of the things that we should have at the back of our mind. When we are talking about things like meals on wheels we should recognise that they represent the inadequate provision by the community, the inadequate sop to its conscience through services which fall sadly below what is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) talked glowingly of the provision of over 5,000 new places in old people's homes last year. He omitted to refer to the fact that the number of people aged 65 and over increased last year by more than 5,000 so that mathematically we are falling behind in the provision of places for old people. We are not winning this race.

Mr. K. Robinson: indicated dissent.

Dr. Kerr: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but on the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West this would appear to be the fact.
It is on community attitudes that there is so much more to say. The first thing is that if the community really bends itself to the care of its older members it is no use beginning once they have reached the age or state of dependency, because that comes at so many different ages. What we should direct our attention to is the fact that the care of the aged begins when the person reaches the age of 60, be he a Member of Parliament or a dustman. The whole problem of geriatrics has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). The problem is that of case discovery. How does one discover a person who is in need of help, when inevitably the process of ageing leads to that very process which some


have rather narrowly referred to as loneliness, but which, more specifically, should be regarded as the problem of isolation?
Loneliness can happen in a great crowd of people, but isolation is essentially a cutting off, which may result from the plain physical disability of arthritis, which prevents the old person leaving his [pine arid going shopping. We recognise too rarely the therapeutic value of being able to go shopping. So many people ho are house-bound become cut off from the community activity of going to the local supermarket. It is a very damaging experience indeed and results from sheer physical incapacity.
It is isolation that we should be talking about, and the problem which the community ought to be facing is that of discovering those who are isolated. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) brought up a suggestion which we are too timorous to follow up. We should try to devise some way of registering a person with the local community services as they register for their retirement pension.
We do not think twice when we register babies and pass on the information to the local health visitor so that they can go round and check up that the babies are being properly looked after, fed, vaccinated and so on. Why do we not do the same for an even more helpless class of people, namely those over 65? Not all of them are helpless, but if we know who is over 65, if we were to organise our health visiting services to engage the attention and support of people over 65 in the same way as they engage the attention and support of mothers and young babies, we would go a long way to recognising and identifying, preventing the problems of isolation as they occur among older people. This is done in some parts, in my own constituency for example. But preventive geriatrics, to coin a phrase, involves a process of education.
It has been said that the relatives of old people should have some education. Already plenty of attempts are made—and some of them are successful—to create classes in local evening institutes for home nursing, but they are generally rather badly attended. They form precisely the sort of educative effort needed to equip the relatives of elderly people with the kind of information of which

they could make most effective use in caring for elderly relatives, yet not much use is made of them. I hope that it is not proposed that such courses should be compulsory. That would be a new departure. It is not a question of creating them: they are in existence and advantage can be taken of them.
The process of education begins with the person growing older. One of the most interesting recent developments in places like Manchester and London is schemes for training for retirement so that people when they retire do not become vegetables and isolated. These training courses equip them with the opportunity to broaden their horizons and to accomplish some new creative activity.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West spoke about entertainment. I do not accept what he says. It is not entertainment but occupation which older people require. Perhaps one of our biggest failures is the difficulty which we put in the way of the man over 65 and the woman over 60, or perhaps even younger, in occupying themselves, not necessarily gainfully, but most advantageously gainfully. After all, this is the natural function of the human being —to do something creative, even though it may be repetitive and simple. The idea of a person producing something is an essential part of living. But we make it difficult for older people to do this.
We disadvantage the older people regarding their pensions and by making it more difficult for them to gain access to means of occupation. If the community is intent upon helping old people, it should make provision in the form of sheltered workshops and other forms of occupation rather than entertainment. I want people to enjoy the right to work but not to be forced to work because their incomes are low or their pensions inadequate. They should enjoy the right to work and be given the opportunity to create which we are busy denying to them. This is one respect in which we can go a long way to preventing the breakdown of individuals. Again it is a question of community attitudes, which we have been expressing today, to some extent.
Reference has inevitably been made to "Sans Everything" by Barbara Robb. It is a dramatic book which expresses


a community attitude—a mixture of concern for things which go wrong and of hope and confidence that things may one day go right. I do not go along with the suggestion that there should be a hospital commissioner. The value of the book, if it has a value—and I believe that it has—lies in the message which is implicit throughout that the whole hospital system should be thrown open to public gaze. There is no better way of ensuring that the dreadful occurences described, I am sure with absolute accuracy, would not occur if the public have the sort of access to old people's institutions and the kind of interest which should be encouraged in old people's institutions which they have, for instance, in the more dramatic acute hospitals. Old people's institutions are a bit boring and forbidding.
That brings me to another point. If the community is to do anything useful for old people, it must learn to contain them and not extrude them into a new form of ghetto. Several hon. Members have referred to Christmas visits to old people's home. I go to visit old people at Christmas, and a more depressing experience it would be hard to find. I do not share this enthusiasm for such visits. One sees a group of old men sitting round in a situation which I can only say is characterised by the word "non-communication". They are all isolated from one another—why, I do not know. The women in the women's wards are all chirruping like magpies, but the men seem to be incapable of creating this kind of community.
Why do we have to shut up old people in one building simply because they are over 65? That is nonsensical. Local authorities which have responsibility for institutional provision should have the imagination to see that if they are to create a community it must be a mixed community. Local authorities, with very few exceptions, pay some kind of attention to this principle in their children's service. The provision of family units in the children's service whereby there are children of different ages in one group is almost axiomatic wherever one goes in the country. But when it comes to old people we are still back in the 19th century. The attitude is: "Over 65—in you go".
Instead, the imaginative local authority should be providing residential accommodation which houses not only old people but young people who need some kind of local authority provision—for example, the unmarried mother, the civil servant who has been moved from one part of the country to another and does not have his family to support with him, and perhaps even Members of Parliament in London who want accommodation, which would be eminently suitable to be provided by a local authority. It would be good for some of us to share with some of those lone individuals. It would provide a spread of age, interest and contact and would create in the institution a community.
That community cannot always house the incapacitated elderly person. Reference has been made to the tripartite nature of the service. I go a long way with what has been said about the division of provision. I do not like a tripartite service. Anybody who thinks about it, however, recognises sooner or later that one comes up against a boundary wherever it is drawn. If it is not drawn in the National Health Service dividing it into three, it is drawn between the National Health Service and the housing service, and sooner or later one trips over the boundary.
One of the difficulties is the conflict between the local health authority provision for old people and hospital provision for old people. On the one hand, the hospitals, and the mental hospitals particularly, are crowded with elderly people who occupy the beds and deny to the mental hospitals their proper function of caring for the mentally sick who are treatable and are subject to some kind of improvement as a result of treatment.
On the other hand, old people's homes are similarly overcrowded with people who require hospital care and who could benefit from hospital treatment. The local health authority or the welfare authorities are resentful that hospitals do not take their cases. On the other hand, the hospitals are resentful that they have cases which should be in local welfare authority accommodation.
There is an argument for much closer working and for a greater ironing out of boundaries. It is largely true that in many parts of the country those


boundaries have been swept away by the sheer commitment of the local authorities concerned. We should see much more of this. I hope that my right hon. Fiend who replies to the debate will think carefully about ways of helping local welfare authorities to get their patients into the hospital service, where they could be rehabilitated, and help the hospital service to empty some of its mental hospital beds of patients who could well be in local health authority care and who simply need the kind of supervision or terminal care which is not properly the responsibility today of the mental hospital service.
I emphasise my ardent support for the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) expressed so cogently. It is clear that there is a growing ferment of demand for selectivity in the social welfare services. If ever a situation proved beyond peradventure that selectivity is out, it is the care of the elderly. We should make it plain from these benches that we do not accept the principle of selective care in our welfare services. Universality must be axiomatic, because without universality we cannot begin to plan the services, let alone all the other more humane and less pragmatic reasons for accepting universality as the basis for welfare.
In the care of the elderly, the introduction of some kind of payment would be unacceptable, not only to us on these benches, but to the electorate as a whole.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Member aware that in our hospital arrangements the only people who have to pay for their hospital care are long-stay pensioners?

Dr. Kerr: I am, of course, aware that that wretched principle was introduced by a Conservative Administration, very much against my wishes at the time. It is my grave disappointment that we have not yet found it possible to remove it. I take it the hon. Gentleman is referring to the reduction in pensions which followed admission to hospital for more than eight: weeks. I do not accept that this is in fact a particularly fair or equitable way of dealing with them.

Mr. Braine: I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I

agree with him entirely. I think that where the elderly are concerned, this is a category of people in need and there should be no charges. I was merely remarking that it seemed somewhat odd that in our enlightened Welfare State these were the only people who suffered a diminution of income. For the rest of us, we get free hospital care.

Dr. Kerr: Yes, I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope very much that in the course of time this, too, will disappear, in the way prescription charges have disappeared. I may add, in parenthesis, that if one group of people has benefited from the removal of prescription charges it is certainly the elderly, and if this Government make no other contribution to the care of the elderly this has been a most important one. I speak in a professional sense rather than a political one.
I wanted just to turn for a moment to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye when he was referring to the provision of private care for old people. I have spoken a great deal of community attitudes, and it is an unfortunate fact that the lack of community provision for the care of the elderly has provided a wonderful provision for the care of the elderly has provided a wonderful stamping ground for a number of —not all—nursing homes which are doing very well indeed out of the need of the community to find somewhere for elderly people to go who are incapacitated and cannot find hospital beds.
I do not want anybody to be under a misapprehension: there are a number of private nursing homes which are taking in old people and which are doing a marvellous job and not extracting from their families or the estates of the old people an extravagant amount of money, but I regret to say that there are a number of such homes which are doing a deplorable job, in which the conditions are disgusting, in which charges are extravagantly high, and which are a disgrace, and which, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, do not seem to have improved as a result of the Measure to which he referred earlier today, and which was passed through this House, giving inspection rights to local health authorities. The fact is that age is also a matter for exploitation.
I have spoken repeatedly about our attitudes, our own attitudes, towards approaching our own old age. I remember that many years ago, when I was a house physician, in charge of a geriatric ward, I stopped at one bed in which there was an elderly lady as I was going on my round, and the sister in charge of the ward said, "Dr. Kerr, this is Louisa. It is her birthday today." I said, "Many happy returns, Louisa. How old are you?" To which she replied in a quavering voice, "I am 92 today. I always wanted to live to a ripe old age, but I do not know whether I shall." This, I think, is something entirely characteristic of our own attitudes both to other people's ages and to our own. I venture to hope that we shall be able to approach that age in which—if I may for a brief second speak professionally—the idea that we have only three score years and ten, or proportionately less, it seems, if we are Members of Parliament, is seen as totally inadequate by any computation. We ought to be able to lead a productive and independent existence, certainly to well over 100 years of age. I would hope that my right hon. Friend's best endeavours will be directed to ensuring that before the Labour Government may be supplanted by any other Government at all they will at least have guaranteed to us this 100 years of productive life.

8.35 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate, but first of all I want to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being here when he made his contribution. I was attending a meeting of a Select Committee, of which I informed Mr. Speaker.
While I have not the great knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), he made one comment which I did not like when he said that we thought of old people as a squalid nuisance—

Dr. David Kerr: I would not like the hon. Lady to think that I said that about old people. I said that old age was squalid nuisance, not old people.

Dame Joan Vickers: Whether that is so or not, most people still revere the elderly.
In one part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman dealt with the training of old people, and I agree entirely with him that we should do all we can to prepare people for retirement. I understand that there are certain firms which run retirement courses, and one of them has a weekend course designed to bring husbands and wives together who, in many cases, live rather separate lives in their everyday work. It is an idea which has worked very well, and I should like to see it continued. Now that people have a shorter working week, they have more time to take up hobbies which will provide them with interests later on. We have an excellent example of this in Plymouth where every year we have an exhibition called "Skilled Hands". It is amazing what beautiful and useful pieces of work people produce, which obviously give them tremendous pleasure.
The hon. Gentleman told a story about an old lady of 92 who, despite her circumstances, was obviously enjoying life. I do not think that it matters about age as long as one is in fairly good health and still has one's mental faculties. We are thinking today mainly about the distressing cases of old people who lose their faculties.
I have just returned from a conference of the Council of Europe in Copenhagen. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that one of the subjects discussed there was that of retirement and provision for old age. Very many corn plimentary things were said about the United Kingdom, and I was amazed at the knowledge of some of the delegates and how they had studied what we do in Great Britain. They think that we have found a great many answers which they have not, which is rather cheering for us when we wonder whether our services are efficient.
On the other side of the picture, I have three constituents over 75 on retirement pensions who have gone abroad recently, one of whom had never even been to London. Her daughter sent her some money, and she has gone to Bermuda for three months, another has gone to Australia, and the third has gone to the Continent. I think that that underlines the fact that we have to bring people into the community before they retire so they do not age so quickly. A lot of them are not in the community when they are


working but simply travel to and from work, but if we bring them into the community before they retire, there is far more chance of keeping them there. I want to pay tribute to the National Old People's Welfare Council and to the Salvation Army. They have done a tremendous amount to bring these matters to the notice of various local authorities and hon. Members of this House.
Hopes have been expressed about the likelihood of extending the expected life span, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could send some of his people who are engaged in research work to see the people in the centre of Russia who seem able to enjoy life at 110 years of age.
Recently, there has been much publicity given to the book "Sans Everything", and I hope that this book will stir up the consciences of people. However, one point about the book which worries me is that there is no attempt to compare conditions in good and bad hospitals. Neither the hospitals nor the contributors are named in the book, and it has had a disturbing effect. I dare say that other hon. Members as well as I have had letters from constituents wondering if their relations might be in one of the hospitals referred to in the book. I am glad that we are having this debate, because it provides the right hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to say how unfair the book is to the good hospitals, which I am sure are in the majority. An example of a good one is the Moorhaven Hospital, near Plymouth, which is open to visits by members of the public. One thing that I am sorry is happening in the West Country is that house committees are being closed down, because these were of great advantage both to the patients and to the staff.
During the last 10 years there has been a tremendous increase in the number of patents over 65 who have been admitted to Moorhaven Hospital. Ten years ago they represented 19 per cent. of the population of the hospital. The figure is now 23 per cent., and this makes matters more difficult.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what powers the General Nursing Council has, because I believe that it has the right to inspect hospitals at least once every five years, and as its members are trained for this job and they

have great knowledge of hospital management and might be able to advise the Minister concerning action in the future.
When someone visits a hospital, he can easily fall into the trap of feeling sorry for a patient after talking to him. This happened to me only last Saturday. A charming old boy came up to me and asked whether I could find his wife. It was a pathetic tale. He wanted her to come down from London, and I said that if he gave me her address I would see what could be done. On making inquiries, however, I found that he had been out in the car with his wife only that afternoon. They had been for a very pleasant drive, and she was proposing to return the following day to visit him, but he had forgotten all about it until reminded and this is what can happen to people who visit patients from time to time, I was not very impressed by "The Diary of a Nobody". I think that there are better ways of tackling these problems.
Having lived overseas for some time, I often had the mothers of friends of mine to stay with me, when they needed looking after, if they could not get back from leave. On one or two occasions I had to find homes for them. It is not easy to find such places, but there are many good ones, and I am glad that voluntary homes are on the increase. They usually cater for a fewer number of people, and I am pleased that the total number has increased by 50 since the last Ministry Report, but it will always be difficult to find the right home for elderly people because they are individuals and need a terrific amount of understanding.
What provision is there for patients or staff to make complaints if they wish to do so? I was a Member of the Committee which considered the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, and one reason why hospitals were not included within the Parliamentary Commissioner's duties was stated to be the circular sent by the Ministry of Health to all hospital committees, which said:
An independent lawyer or other competent person from outside the hospital should conduct an inquiry set up for the purpose whose membership shall be independent of the parties concerned and should include a person or persons to advise on professional and technical matters. The complainant or any other person who has such a complaint should have the opportunity of hearing and cross-examining the witnesses and should be allowed to


make their own arrangements to be legally represented if they so wish.
Are the details of this circular known to the nurses and to the matrons, and is a notice displayed in hospitals telling the relatives of patients what rights they have?

Mr. K. Robinson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady here. The circular sets out methods of dealing with complaints by, or on behalf of, patients. It details a number of suggested methods, if I may use the phrase, graded according to the seriousness, or apparent seriousness, of the complaint. The procedure which the hon. Lady has detailed is for the more serious type of complaint. I think it would be fair to say that the normal channel of complaint for a member of the nursing staff is through his or her superior officer. Clearly, if she or he did not get satisfaction in that way an approach to the chief administrator of the hospital management committee or the regional hospital board would be open.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. These points should have been known but evidently could not have been known to the writers of this book, because they did not adopt what I would have considered the normal processes.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central talked about the registration of people when they retire, and I agree that this is extremely important. I had hoped that this would have been done some time ago. If people on retirement were sent a form they could fill it in, voluntarily, and at the same time they could be told of the advantages of the Welfare system in their district and the machinery that exists to help them.
I was interested to find that in an excellent book on "The Social Needs of the Over-80's" it was said that 8 per cent. of men and 5·5 per cent. of women in the survey conducted had no knowledge of the various services available. Ten per cent. of the over-eighties did not know that there was a chiropody service. I would have thought that this system of registration was a very good way of bringing to the attention of the individuals concerned the facilities that exist. We would know where the old

people were living and the old people would know what was available.
I do not want to say anything against the meals-on-wheels service, which is excellent, but I am worried about the nutritional value of some of the meals. I should like the Minister's assurance that the service is providing the right type of meals, especially in hot weather. I would have thought that it could have provided a better standard of diet. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman issues guidance and advice to the R.W.V.S. and the Red Cross, who do this excellent work, as to the type of meal that is most advantageous. The question of malnutrition is very important in this respect, as it is not always caused through not having enough to eat; sometimes it is caused by not eating the right things to keep fit, especially if a person is unable to have much exercise.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing to continue with what I think is one of the best forms of housing old persons, namely, little flatlets with their own kitchens, and with warders available to help the occupants. This enables them to be on their own but also to be secure in the knowledge that there is somebody to look after them.
Then there is the question of boarding out. Special arrangements for this are made by Exeter and Plymouth. These social security authorities pay £3 15s. to persons who are willing to take old people, in the same way that a child is fostered out. It is clear that the old people will go only to good homes, because nobody will take in somebody for that small sum of money if he is not anxious to take in that person. Over 100 people in Plymouth have been boarded out in this way.
At one time the idea was that old people should always live in mixed communities, and it is a great advantage if they can have their little flatlets in a block of flats. However, tremendous success has been obtained by Miles Mitchell Trust with villages for old people. We have a village in Plymouth where the people have their own hall and shop, and their own community centre. They have their own "get-togethers", and also where they can work at their various interests. They do their gardening. The scheme has proved to be an enormous


success, and there is a long waiting list. This system goes against our previous ideas which proves there is room for all types of organisations and I should like consideration given to this type of scheme, because it has been going on now for about ten years and has proved very helpful.
I turn finally to the question of holidays. Many seaside towns give special off-season terms. Perhaps old people could register at a central place like the town hall to gain knowledge as to going on holiday and receive details from the local authority. A holiday away from home breaks the monotony for old people as they meet other people. We should encourage local authorities to show the various centres where these facilities exist, although they need not make all the arrangements. Married couples too should be kept together in old people's homes if possible and the two sexes should not be divided. Both should live together, as this is the natural way of living.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: We cannot dismiss the seriousness of this problem. By 1975, 10 million people will be over 65. At the moment, there are 6½ million, 90 per cent. of whom Lye with friends or relatives, which means that 10 per cent. are not wanted or cannot be looked after in this way. The debate has concentrated on this 10 per cent., but I am also concerned about part of the 90 per cent. Although older people, who have been euphemistically called "senior citizens" may be looked after by friends and relatives, here too there may be serious problems. When an old person lives with a younger family with different habits, customs and traditions, there may be difficulties, despite statistical evidence that they are well looked after.
We are told that only 50,000 beds are available for such cases. In Warwickshire, where my constituency is situated, the county council has had to say that only the very serious cases, with no immediate friends or relatives, can be admitted to such hospitals, which increases the percentage of families who have their relations living with them despite difficult problems. Although a large percentage may be looked after by their

relatives, we must remember these problems of shortage of geriatric beds.
The publication "Sans Everything" goes about this in the wrong way, because it should not only give serious examples and quote speeches and comments to give a headline effect. One of the better methods is to propose action to improve matters. I would have liked more suggestions of this kind in the publication. We accept that there are serious difficulties, but want to know some of the ways of dealing with them.
Much depends upon where the particular senior citizen happens to live. My constituency of Nuneaton has a first-class record of care for the elderly. I pay tribute to the people who are responsible for this first-class record, and I shall tell the House of one or two things which my borough does which could, I feel, be copied with advantage by others.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Dame Joan Vickers) emphasised the need to have a wide choice of accommodation available to our senior citizens. It is no good thinking that, if we build an old people's home, that is enough. It is no good thinking that just one kind of provision is sufficient. Many people, after reaching retirement age, still want to live what is basically their own life they like to keep their own house and things together. This is why the flatlet schemes developed in my constituency are so valuable.
In such flatlet schemes, which are now being favoured by many of the more progressive local authorities, not only is there a warden but there is also a community hall and other facilities actually within the centre. This encourages old people to carry on living their independent lives, should they wish to do so, and it also permits them to get together of an evening to play dominoes, to watch television and so on, and, what is more, to have their relatives visit them not only in their individual dwellings but also in the communal accommodation.
A further and most enlightened development is the siting of flats and dwellings for younger couples either as part of the old people's centre or very near to it. Quite a few such developments are now going on in various parts of the country to make provision for individual and communal living by our


senior citizens and younger citizens as well. In my view, this is a line of development which should be encouraged. One only has to compare the situation in an old people's home and in a flatlet scheme running side by side. Very often, the people have gone either into the flatlets or the home purely by choice, but what has struck me on my visits to these schemes is the comparison between the way of life of people living in the flatlets, where they are more often the independent and sturdy type of person, the person who takes pride in being allowed to carry on his or her own existence, whereas on the other hand, the people who have been put into the home very often become dependent and, as we have heard in this debate, they reach the point when they have difficulty in communicating and more and more has to be done for them. I urge, therefore, that we encourage the development of centres which permit senior citizens to pursue as much of an independent existence as they possibly can.
In spite of everything we may do through the local authorities, and in spite of everything which we may choose to do within the community, as society becomes more affluent, it becomes more callous. Although we may have a greater number of centres and a greater number of old people's homes, if there is not the right kind of attitude within the community itself, a lot of that will be not just wasted money but money that could be better spent if there were more community participation.
In this connection, I applaud the work of the old people's welfare committee in the Borough of Nuneaton, which not only provides the usual facilities provided by old people's welfare committees such as laundry, information services and the like, but, more important, has a visiting subcommittee composed of people willing to devote their mornings, afternoons or evenings, on a rota system, to going round to visit senior citizens wherever they happen to live. This is tremendously important. The greatest misfortune which old people have to combat is so often not physical ill health or the difficult conditions in which they live but sheer loneliness.
Many local authorities throughout the country still think that by providing old

people with flatlets, bungalows or homes they have solved the problem of the elderly, but while old people still have loneliness and are without visitors that problem still very much exists. The old people's welfare committee at Nuneaton has managed very successfully to involve not only its own members and those who come to the occasional lecture and to see what the committee is doing but also many local clubs and societies, and particularly the schools. When I was at school we used to run a record evening at one of the local hospitals for the old patients over the "intercom" system. This is still being done in my constituency, and it is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. In many respects I am a very fortunate Members in that, if I have problems concerning those over 65, I know that apart from the centres, institutions, homes and local authority facilities which are freely provided for senior citizens in my constituency, the old people's welfare committee involves the rest of the community in its work.
I, too, wish that I had been here for the whole debate, and I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having been here all the time. In forming conclusions on the debate we must bear in mind that whatever we do from the local authority and public expenditure point of view, if we do not have the involvement and participation of the local community and a very active background of voluntary activity from it, much of the money will not be spent as well as it could be.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The debate has been somewhat unusual in two respects. We have had a series of exceptionally thoughtful, sensitive, informed and constructive speeches, all of which have indicated a deep and lively concern for the more vulnerable of our old people. Unlike what happens in most of our discussions, and what will no doubt take place in our discussion later tonight, a very clear consensus has emerged.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and the Minister have reminded us that the problem of caring for the elderly is growing. It is a sobering thought that the number of those over the age of 65 is expected to increase by no less than 20 per cent. between 1965


and 1976, which I understand is about twice as fast as the rate of growth of the total population. But we need to keep this changing pattern in perspective. Thus I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) that we do not help the elderly by treating old age itself as a problem. We have only to consider our colleague, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), to realise that age is a matter of attitude, a state of mind.
Indeed, it is one of the more encouraging features of our society that the age at which most people feel that they are getting old is tending to rise all the time. It is astonishing to me how youthful grandmothers seem to be these days—and grandfathers, too, but I take greater notice of the grandmothers. It is a good thing that they should be, because life is meant to be lived to the full. It has been my observation that very few old people seem to lament the passing of their middle years. Dean Swift was very near the mark when he said:
No wise man ever wishes to be young.
Moreover, most old people enjoy reasonable health. About half of them over the age of 65 are living with their spouses and normally are in contact with children or friends. About 96 per cent. live in their own homes. But this does not mean that all those living in their own homes are enjoying a comfortable, independent existence. Far from it. About a quarter have no surviving children, and about one-tenth—my figures are not up to date, but I think that must be at least 650,000—are housebound because of illness or infirmity. Many are desperately lonely. It does not matter very much whether one calls it "isolation" as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central did, or "loneliness". Many of them are desperately lonely and feel cut off, neglected and unwanted. For some, unhappily, help comes only when they have had a complete breadown in health, and often then it is too late.
Listening to the speeches, it seemed to ma that we were all agreed that if we are to ensure a decent and dignified existence for all our old people we must meet

two basic requirements. The first requirement for all old people is a home of their own where they can lead, or be helped to lead, an independent existence for as long as humanly possible. The second is that our health and welfare services should be designed not merely to treat sickness and infirmity when these occur, but to promote positive health and welfare.
The truth is that by any test our present arrangements make it difficult to meet these requirements as we would wish. I have felt this for many years. I felt it when I was at the Ministry of Health, and I feel that it is still true today. Where the system works satisfactorily it is not because of its inherent virtues but despite them. It is not because the administrative structure of our health and welfare services is specially designed to meet the needs of the patient but because the kind of people engaged in the service—the family doctors, the geriatricians, the nurses, the hospital secretaries, the medical officers of health, the welfare officers and social workers, and one might add the lay people in hospital administration and local authorities—are trained, responsible and dedicated.
Where in any area there is a good consultant geriatrician, effective liaison between the family doctors, the hospitals and the local authority services, adequate home nursing and home help, domiciliary physiotherapy and a well organised meals on wheels service, although all these no doubt require a greater outlay of money in the first place, there is a quicker turn round of beds, a more economic use of resources and less danger of a patient after having been restored in health and discharged coming back to hospital because of neglect in the home. In such circumstances the system works very well indeed. All of us know areas where one can point to this happening with justifiable pride. But all too often the system does not work very well, and there are some areas where it hardly works at all.
The reason is that there are two basic defects in our social provision for the elderly. First, there is not enough of the various kinds of accommodation necessary to safeguard the health and preserve the independence of old people for as long as possible. Secondly, there is no one authority charged with the


responsibility either for finding that accommodation or providing the care, and as a consequence there is imperfect co-ordination of services.
These two defects interact one upon the other. The outcome is often an administrative muddle, frustration of staff, damage to the best interests of the patient and a waste of resources. So we have far too many reasonably fit old people eating their hearts out in local authority welfare homes—admittedly, first class accommodation in many cases —simply because not enough small dwellings are provided by housing authorities.
So there are far too many frail old people needing care but still in their own homes for whom no welfare accommodation will be available until after their health has finally broken down and they have had to go into hospital. So there are far too many old people in hospitals who cannot be discharged because they have no home to go to or because there is no one at home to care for them. I have heard it suggested, and never denied, that there may be as many as 25,000 old people in psychiatric hospitals who could be discharged tomorrow if there were someone at home to care for them.
It is important to ask ourselves why these people are in psychiatric hospitals. Doctor Stephen Horsley, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and who is quoted in "Sans Everything", believes that
Perhaps 80 per cent. of elderly patients in mental hospitals have mental symptoms entirely attributable to untreated physical ailments.
It is a serious indictment of the National Health Service that there is still much misplacement of elderly patients within the hospital service. Perhaps one quarter of the elderly in psychiatric hospitals should be in geriatric units and one-third of those in geriatric units should be in psychiatric hospitals. This situation is not new. I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman. This has been going on for a long time and we are all seeking year by year to remedy it.
But such a situation has more serious consequences than the layman would suppose. During the investigation to which I am referring, which took place some

years ago, Dr. Kidd found that the mortality of misplaced patients was significantly higher than among the correctly placed patients wherever they were and, secondly, that the discharge rate of medical patients was slightly higher if they were correctly placed in geriatric rather than in psychiatric wards. He concluded:
It is difficult to imagine any more drastic consequences from admitting old people to the wrong hospital than that so high a proportion of them should die, and that of those who survive so few should be discharged.
I would like to think that a lot of that has changed. No doubt there have been improvements but I have been told by consultant geriatricians that misplacement still exists. My first question, therefore, is what is being done about this? As the right hon. Gentleman told us in his very interesting speech, the ideal is, of course, the establishment of psycho-geriatric units under the joint care of a geriatrician and a psychiatrist, to which all old people would be admitted for short-term assessment, diagnosis and treatment and for decision as to further care. How many are there of these units?
As for these old people discharged from hospitals, their capacity to keep fit despite a functional disability depends very much on their general environment and the availability of the domiciliary services. It is not surprising that, while less than one-third of those who have someone to care for them at home go back to hospital, about half of those living alone return to hospital.
I come now to the first defect in our provision for the elderly—the insufficiency of the right kind of accommodation. Although great strides have been made in recent years in the provision of purpose-built welfare homes the recommended level of 20 beds per 1,000 population over the age of 65 is still inadequate in a good many areas. In any event, I suggest that the ratio is unrealistic unless it is related to the provision of special housing for the fit elderly, on the one hand, and to adequate geriatric beds, on the other. But we know that here the provision varies considerably from area to area.
Coming to the geriatric provision there does not appear to be much scientific basis for the recommended level of ten beds per 1,000 of the population over 65. That ratio is based on the decision that


the Conservative Government took in 1962 in their long-term Hospital Plan. They looked at the existing provision, which was 10.8 per 1,000 persons over 65, and said, "This will be roughly right for the next ten years or so and we will base the plan on this, especially as we can expect improvements in active treatment in the hospitals and in the rehabilitation services outside".
We recognised in the Hospital Plan, however, that knowledge and experience would not stand still, and that the hospital authorities would be alert to modify the proposals and to bring forward new ones.
Since then five years have elapsed. Despite the glowing picture that was painted by the right hon. Gentleman the provision is still inadequate. In the group of hospitals serving my constituency and Southend-on-Sea there is provision for only five beds per 1,000. The proof that the provision is inadequate, whether it is 5 per 1,000 or 10 per 1,000, is seen in the waiting lists.
It is very difficult to get at the truth. On the same day last week that the British Medical Association warned the nation that the National Health Service was heading for disaster, the Minister issued his annual report saying that he did not accept the criticisms and that the past year had seen "a striking measure of success". There have been successes, there are strains and there are difficulties, and this is not the time and place to go into them. However, tucked into page 55 of his Report was the admission that the total number of persons awaiting admission to hospital was 536,000—an increase of 19,000 or 4 per cent. over 1965. I understand that the geriatric figures show a slight decrease since 1965, but nevertheless an increase of about 25 per cent. over the figures for 1964.
What are the explanations? Is it that there is a persistent overall shortage of geriatric beds or is it that some geriatric accommodation is being used for other purposes? We know that young chronic sick patients are often put in geriatric wards. That is a wrong and cruel thing to do, but we know that it happens.
Is it that the Ministry of Health's standard is now based on the wrong criteria? I think this is a serious question to put to the Minister. We know that it is not

so much people between the ages of 65 and 70 who need care and attention as those over 70. It is over 70—of course I am generalising here—when old people are most likely to have lost their partners, are living on their own away from relatives and friends, and are getting frailer in body and spirit.
Is it that there is a shortage of geriatricians—the Minister told us that there had been an increase—or a shortage of geriatric social workers? If so, what is being done to give encouragement to a branch of medicine and social work which will become of increasing importance as the numbers of old people increase?
Is it that there is a shortage of physiotherapy facilities in hospitals? If so, why does the Minister discourage mobile physiotherapy units which make use of married women physiotherapists who are not available for full-time work in hospitals?
Is it that we still have an insufficiency of day hospitals? We had a glowing account from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the new day hospital in Bournemouth. There is no doubt that these are very desirable institutions since they help to prevent old people deteriorating to the point where they must become inpatients.
May I now turn to Mrs. Barbara Robb's book "Sans Everything", which has figured in a number of speeches? Everyone who has read it has been affected by its terrifying indictment of conditions which it is alleged are endured by elderly patients in certain unnamed hospitals. One would hope that these allegations of cruelty and neglect are true of only a very small number of hospitals, but if they are true of only one, this must call for swift remedial action.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that Mrs. Robb has performed a useful service in one respect —in warning us that we cannot shuffle off our responsibilities for the care of the old and the weak and, to use his term, the defeated, in the belief that now that the Welfare State exists, it will take care of them and we do not have to bother.
I want to say from this side of the House that we are very glad that the Minister has decided to arrange for an independent inquiry. His approach


this afternoon to the whole matter was absolutely correct. At the same time, I am sure that he will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West were right to insist that the inquiry should be conducted in a way which would give everyone, both in the hospital service and outside, the fullest confidence in its impartiality and its determination to establish the truth.
The right hon. Gentleman answered two of my hon. Friend's questions. He said that the person conducting the inquiry would have expert medical and nursing assistance and that care would be taken to ensure that the persons who are chosen have no connection with the hospital regions in which the hospitals complained of are located. I must press him for an answer to the third question, which was whether steps would be taken to ensure that no possible pressure could be put on junior hospital staff or patients about the evidence which they gave.
This is particularly important where nursing staff are involved. Because of their involvement and the narrow confines of their relevant experience, patients and their relatives are not necessarily the best witnesses to malpractice or poor conditions in hospitals—I think that we can understand that. Nursing staff, on the other hand, have better understanding of conditions and of their origins in the hospitals in which they serve and are therefore in a better position to make a true assessment of standards of care. I suggest that their evidence should be sought in circumstances which will permit them to speak freely and without risk. Moreover, their evidence should be considered in relation not only to particular abuses, but to the whole administration and atmosphere of the hospital concerned. I say that because my hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that there must be no whitewashing.
But the matter does not end there. Whatever is revealed by the inquiry, I hope that due note will be taken of a suggestion by Professor Brian Abel-Smith and urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton that effective machinery should be set up for investigating complaints about hospitals. The present arrangements for investigating complaints are not satisfactory—we all know this.

The well-run hospitals have nothing to hide and the dedicated doctor or nurse or hospital secretary has nothing to fear. As every speech in the debate has shown, the rest of us have no right to shelve our responsibility for the sick and infirm in our care.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman said that the present arrangements for investigating complaints were not at all satisfactory. He ought to substantiate that, because the present arrangements have been in force for only about a year and I know of no evidence whatever on which to base such a general assertion that they are not working satisfactorily.

Mr. Braine: It would probably be unfair to criticise the arrangements which have come into being since the right hon. Gentleman issued his circular. It would be fair to say that these must have time to work out. Nevertheless, most people who have addressed themselves to this question feel that even the new arrangements, like the old, are based on the hospital authorities being judge and jury in their own case. I am not saying that this leads to the suppression of material evidence, or anything of that kind. What I am saying is that it is not always what the facts are that matter, but what people believe them to be.
Just as this House has decided to establish a Parliamentary Commissioner, or Ombudsman, to consider complaints against administrative mismanagement and abuse, it seems that there is a strong case for doing something of a similar nature in respect of the health of the hospital service. All that I am asking is that due note be taken of the suggestions made.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend press the right hon. Gentleman to give illustrations as to how the anonymity of those who give evidence will be preserved, because this is what is causing great anxiety in the nursing profession? I have had no opportunity of pressing this upon the right hon. Gentleman myself.

Mr. Braine: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman this, and I am sure that he has taken the point. I now turn to the second defect in the system, the fragmentation of the services for the old and the consequent failure to see the problem in


the round. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), in a very interesting speech, rightly drew attention to the unsatisfactory structure of the National Health Service, within the centralised political control and divided, tripartite local administration. I agree with every word that he has said.
Whatever one's view about this generally, nowhere does one see that tripartite administration at greater disadvantage, creaking at the seams, than in the care of old people. Talk to any family doctor, geriatrician, welfare officer, or housing manager, and all recognise that a serious problem exists. Each does his own job to the best of his ability, yet each feels frustrated by the lack of effective co-ordination. The family doctor may be driven to ask for admission of a patient to hospital because of the inadequacy of domiciliary services. Having got on the telephone he may then spend a considerable time trying to persuade the hospital to accept his patient because of the inefficiency of hospital admission procedure. This is well known. The geriatrician is often at his wit's end to fir d beds for old people in need of care. He knows, too, that his work may be undone by lack of supporting services in the community.
The basic difficulty is that no one is responsible for identifying the elderly in next of help until after that need has arisen. There is no central responsibility. This is split between four Ministries at central Government level, between county and district authorities and between social work departments within the county authorities. So often the result is lack of continuity in the help and support provided in particular cases. So often the result is the provision of a palliative only because the service providing it is not empowered to go to the root cause of the trouble. So often the result is failure to use social workers who are trained to see the problem in the whole in the most economic and effective way or failure to make the best use of voluntary agencies who are looking for leadership to the statutory services.
There is also the failure stemming from the natural human resistance to taking on unaccustomed responsibility. The Phillips Committee, for example, put the point very well some years ago. It said:

There must be a natural temptation to try to place elsewhere the responsibility for cases which do not fit easily into any of the conventional statutory definitions, and the best interests of the individual old person may therefore not always be served.
No doubt all this is being considered by the Seebohm Committee. But the Government alone can bring order out of this chaos; the Government alone can will the means.
I do not wish to be ungenerous. On this side we acknowledge that certain significant steps have been taken in the last year and we give support and encouragement to them. There is the proposal to set up a new local authority social work department in Scotland, which springs from the recommendations of the Killbrandon Committee set up under the Conservative Government. I shall be interested to know when this proposal will be implemented. There is the extremely valuable experiment in Livingstone New Town, where it has been decided to unify the three parts of the National Health Service, and to make tripartite appointments from the outset. This is excellent. This is real progress. But what is happening in England? Are there any similar experiments planned or under way?
Then there is the welcome trend in some areas towards the joint appointment of consultant geriatrician by hospital authorities and local health authorities. Clearly this ensures much more effective use of beds and welfare homes. This is, a splendid move and we welcome it.
The Minister's task is to co-ordinate all these activities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) asked the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June what he was doing about this, he gave a somewhat vague reply and admitted that he had no staff. I am aware—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity in a moment to explain how he uses other Ministers' staff. I am, however, aware that a great deal of inquiry and research is afoot.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about the studies taking place, for example, in the Nuffield Department of Industrial Health in Newcastle into the care of geriatric patients. I hope


that he will be able to tell us something about Professor Peter Townsend's comparative study of the aged in Denmark and the United Kingdom, Professor Roth's study of psychiatric care needs of the aged, and the inquiry into the health and welfare services by Professor Chester at Manchester University.
All this sounds wonderful. I do not know for how long it has been going on. We should like to know when the results will be made known and when they will be fitted into a programme of action. The right hon. Gentleman possesses great qualities of heart and mind, as those of us who have known him for many years can testify, but I hope that he is seized of the fact that reshaping social provision for the elderly is now long overdue. I hope that if he is encountering difficulties about finance or from colleagues whose Departments are reluctant to lose part of their administrative empires, he will have been fortified and encouraged by the deep concern expressed by every speaker in this debate.
There is no escape from our moral responsibility for the old, any more than we can escape, apart from accident or illness, from getting old ourselves. If this debate has shown anything, it is that all of us agree that the real test of the worth of our society is our determination to care effectively for the old, the sick and the infirm.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): This has been a very careful, informed, serious and constructive debate. There has been no, or very little, attempt to make party points. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Melton (Miss Pike) and Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who opened and closed the debate, and to everyone who took part in it for their constructive and serious attitudes.
One of the results of debates such as this—we have had a number on this subject—is that it has become generally understood, and is almost a truism, how rapidly the elderly population is increasing and will continue to increase. It is probable that by the 1980s there will be about 10 million people over retirement age, and between now and the 1980s—this is a very serious problem for those

who have to plan the development of the social services—the proportion of the dependent population—those under school-leaving age, on the one hand, and those over retirement age, on the other—will be rising much more rapidly than the working population, which has to produce the wealth from which we pay for social security.
However, in the 1980s—I do not know whether this is generally realised—as children grow up and enter the labour force this trend is expected to be reversed and from the 1980s the proportion of those in work will increase more rapidly than the dependent population, despite the rapid increase of people over retirement age. But, whatever happens, there will be a large number of people over retirement age as a permanent feature of our society.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East said about not treating old age as a problem. There is inevitably a slight tendency to do that in a debate like this because everybody concentrates on the problems, which is right and proper, but there is a very large number of people—and we should never forget it—who can and do look after themselves very well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, it is also true—much more true than is often realised—that many younger people look after their elderly parents and relatives.
There are, however, problems. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East pointed out, 25 per cent. of retired people do not have children or relatives who can look after them. We have some idea of the proportion of the total number of the retired and elderly who need special care, although we must remember when talking about percentages and categories that the individual people are moving from one class to another all the time. We must not lose sight of the particular problems when talking about general percentages.
I agree with the hon. Member's figures, that about 95 or 96 per cent. of elderly people live at home, perhaps one in 10 is housebound through frailty or sickness, 4 per cent. are in residential accommodation, some of it very old and inadequate, and about 2 per cent.—this is a varying figure—are at times in mental hospitals. Although


the proportion of those with special claims for care is not therefore as great as is sometimes thought, the absolute number is very great because a small percentage of a very great number still leaves a large number of people. For instance, 2 per cent. of the 8 million or so who are now over pension age is 160,000. So, although the percentages an not great, the absolute figures make al extremely serious problem.
As the hon. Member pointed out, we have both a self-centred and a moral obligation towards the elderly who need special care. We have a self-centred obligation because we all hope to become old ourselves. Even though my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) spoke about the horrible problem of decay which will overcome us, the alternative, as someone once said, is somewhat less attractive. Some of us, I regret to say, are nearer to retirement than others, but we all look forward to retirement in the sense that it is the best alternative before w. The treatment we can expect from society must be conditioned by the amount of provision we in our own time make for the elderly with whom we have to deal.
Of course, the most powerful motive must be—and it was clear from the debate that it is—the moral obligation and the duty to solace those who suffer and do our utmost to assuage pain, sickness and infirmity. The extent to which we do these things is the measure of the worth of our civilisation. We have to tackle this, as has been made clear by many hon. Members who have spoken, from many angles.
The maintenance of income is, of course, one very vital factor. If affects all on retirement pension and undoubtedly helps large numbers to look after themselves more adequately than they could if they had less income. The recently announced increases in retirement pension, to commence next October, will raise the incomes of retired people by about £160 million. This is not to be ignored as a contribution towards a partial solution of the problems we have been talking about.
We are working on the complex problerns of a new and revolutionary wage-linked superannuation scheme, which we intend to pass into law before the end of

this Parliament, and which will help to solve the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) of the sudden drop of income on retirement which creates relative poverty—though not necessarily absolute poverty—often of a very serious kind. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that cash alone, however generous—and it can never be generous enough—leaves much of the problem untouched.
In approaching these problems we have naturally been very much concerned about the allegations made in the book "Sans Everything." I assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that there is not going to be any kind of whitewashing attempted over that. It is slightly insulting to my right hon. Friend the Minister to suggest that there could be any hint, thought or possibility of a whitewash operation.
I was very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East said about my right hon. Friend's remarks on this point. Searching inquiries are being made into these allegations, in so far as it is possible from information which is supplied. The nature and kind of the inquiry must depend upon the nature of the evidence which is produced. The names of the hospitals which are involved may in some cases be enough; in others not nearly enough to enable a searching inquiry to be made. Of course, every step will be taken to see that the witnesses, whether patients, nurses, or anyone else, can speak freely and safely. The report will be published when it is finished, though I think it would probably not be desirable, and I think the House would agree, that all the evidence in these cases should be published. But the finding and the conclusions of the report will be published.
There is one thing I do not like about this book and that is the reiterated implication that my right hon. Friend is a callous and indifferent Minister who tends to put the hospital services before the patients. This is a wholly unjustified calumny of his conduct in this instance or, indeed, in his whole political life. Those of us who were in the House sufficiently long ago to remember it recall that my right hon. Friend, who was


then a young back bencher, almost single-handed made it his job to draw to our attention the state of our mental hospitals—and it was not then nearly so popular to do that as it is today. In office, he has been a most active, sympathetic, resourceful and fair Minister, and I am sure that everybody in the House, regardless of party, resents the slurs which have been passed upon his integrity.
Apart from the particular allegations, which, of course, must and will be looked into as far as that is made possible by the provision of evidence, we must remember, as many speakers have said, that there is an underlying problem, namely, that some of our mental hospitals are still so overcrowded that it is really very difficult—or not always easy, shall I say?—to give patients the special care and treatment to which they are entitled.
The numbers in mental hospitals are decreasing. They have been decreasing for a long time, under the Government of the Conservatives and under ours, and, indeed, in other countries, and that is a good thing. It is partly because of less misplacement, and so on, that the numbers are decreasing, and I think we can expect that they will continue to decrease. We have to carry this further. We have got to do everything we possibly can to keep out of mental hospitals and geriatric hospitals elderly people who should never go there at all, which is a misplacement problem, and we have to get out of hospital those who should not be there, so far as this can be done humanely—for there is a great variety of cases.
I listened with interest to the confident figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I do not know how true or not they are as to how many can be got out, how many are misplaced, and so on, but if he has any statistical basis for those confident figures I shall be very glad indeed to see it in due course and do my best, with my right hon. Friend, to take it up.
If we are to get this misplacement problem right we have to tackle it simultaneously from very many angles. We have to press on with new ideas and methods, which are springing up in differ-

ent parts of the country, and which are designed to ensure re-entry into the community and return to their own homes, of elderly people in hospital. Very great medical progress is being made in this field. There are many examples up and down the country of the excellent work being done by the geriatric hospitals to keep the sick and disabled people to the greatest possible extent in the community.
The example I know best is of a geriatric hospital in my own constituency, Langthorne Hospital, which is a very old Poor Law hospital built about a hundred years ago. Dr. Delargy, who is in charge of it, has introduced many new ideas, some of which he pioneered and some, no doubt, which he borrowed from other people—and which are spreading throughout the country. One of the ideas to which he attaches the greatest possible importance is the visiting of patients before they are admitted, partly to explain to them in their homes what to expect in hospital so that it will not come as a great shock to them, and partly to prepare their relatives to accept them back after they have been in hospital. He calls this. "arranging, discharge before admission." It is a very good approach to the problem. Patients are moved as quickly as possible out of the acute wards.
Then there is another scheme which he has, and which the hon. Member for Melton mentioned in connection with a hospital in Colchester, for elderly people who have incurable disabilities and whose care imposes a great strain on their relatives. Under this scheme they spend alternatively six weeks in the hospital and six weeks at home. By this and other means in Langthorne hospital, a discharge rate of about 130 a month out of a total of 640 patients has been achieved, providing a rapid turnover and availability of beds.
We must do all that we can to find accommodation for the elderly when they grow more feeble outside these various kinds of hospitals. One of the needs is the building of new residential homes and the closure of old and outworn institutions. To some extent, one does not make as rapid progress as one might statistically because these old places are being closed. In the three years 1964–66, 342 homes for the elderly and


handicapped people were opened for 16,000 residents and, in that same period, 30 former public assistance institutions were closed. One never makes rapid enough progress, but this is quite substantial.
Another need for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing is particularly responsible is to provide within our house building programme special dwellings designed to enable old people to continue to look after themselves. Since the war, something like 400,000 one-bedroom and bedsitting room dwellings have been built by local authorities and new town corporations in England and Wales. The vast majority of them have been designed for the needs of the elderly and are in fact occupied by old people. At present, about 25 per cent. of our housing programme is devoted to this end, so that we are making a very vigorous effort to catch up with this part of the problem, which saves us a considerable amount of money in other fields of activity, though it is more expensive than ordinary housing. In addition, many local authorities have produced a number of two-bedroomed dwellings for this purpose.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has been giving a great deal of thought to the problems involved in the design of housing for the elderly. We are not yet sure what the answers are. We have to experiment and learn from what we do. I know that my right hon. Friend is only too conscious that we are still a long way from knowing all the answers. It is easy to make speeches about these matters, but it is not so easy to get things right. My right hon. Friend has issued a large number of design bulletins for the guidance of housing authorities, and his research and development group has built an experimental block of 24 old people's flatlets on behalf of Stevenage Development Corporation, details of which are set out in a pamphlet. Anyone who is interested and has not seen it will find it an extremely valuable document. It is an experiment, and we want views and judgments upon it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, perhaps the highest need of all is to help

those elderly people who make up the vast majority of those with whom we are dealing. They are the people who live at home and need help to continue living at home. We have been talking a great deal about services in our hospitals, but services at home concern overwhelmingly the largest proportion of elderly people.
Reference has been made to the meals service. This is spreading. It is an example of a service which was voluntarily pioneered by the W.R.V.S. and which is now being developed by the local authorities. I think that about 12 million meals will be delivered this year, and about 5½ million meals will be served in lunch clubs. Local authority services, which are rapidly developing, cover about 30 per cent. of the field at the moment, and are going forward without the work of the W.R.V.S. falling off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen asked about home helps. They are of tremendous importance, and although their work is not concerned only with helping old people, it is heavily concentrated on this group. The numbers are increasing, but there are never enough. In 1964 there were 61,800. In 1966 there were 65,300, about 4,000 more. It is not always easy to recruit home helps, and so this rate of progress, if it is continued, will make a considerable contribution.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the problem of loneliness, which concerns particularly those who are living in their own homes, or in houses with other people. To this one must add ignorance of the services, benefits, supplements, concessions, and so on, to which they are entitled. Many agencies help to solve this problem. Where it is in contact with elderly people, the Supplementary Benefits Commission does magnificent work in seeing that they are aware of their rights, and in bringing elderly people into touch with the organisations and authorities which can help them. But the main task naturally falls on local authority welfare services which do indispensable work, and I need not detail it, as everybody knows it.
I come now to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East about the co-ordination and harmonisation of these services. We have to await the Seebohm Report, and


I cannot therefore anticipate it. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that I am very much in favour of the creation of what is sometimes called a family service. How it is to be done, how wide it is to go, and so on, are matters in respect of which we have to await the Seebohm Report. I hope that it will come this year, and that it will give us great assistance in trying to solve this problem.
We are not sure about the integration of the tripartite system, because we do not know exactly how the Seebohm Committee will interpret its terms of reference, but in any case this must, in the first place, be a matter for local authorities. We are watching with great interest and care—the hon. Gentleman gave one example, but there are one or two others—the work that is being done by local authorities to integrate these services, and it may be that when progress has been made, and experiments have been carried out, we can begin to generalise more. But I think it is a difficult problem of organisation. The various experiments that are being tried are still a bit tentative, and it is better that this should be done by forward looking local authorities. We can then learn from what they do, and consider generalising it.
We are increasing the number of trained social workers. It is not only a question of harmonising them, but of increasing their numbers. The number of certificated social workers in training has increased by 350, and the rate is increasing. We hope that this will soon rise to an increase of 500 in training each year. As the hon. Lady said, and I would like to endorse it, voluntary organisations have an enormously important rôle to play in this and other cognate fields. They play a very important rôle in helping to combat loneliness among the elderly, and in helping them with their housework, repairs to their homes, and that kind of thing. It needs to be very carefully organised and co-ordinated.
One of the most encouraging things is the way in which young people are helping, on a really encouraging scale, in classes from schools, and also what are called unattached people, those who are not in schools. It is a rather striking

development that whereas attendance at youth clubs, places where they go and amuse themselves, is falling, the number of young people ready to help others is rapidly increasing. This is shown by such bodies as Task Force in London which concentrates on helping elderly people, and there are similar bodies in other parts of the country. We are seeking ways of stimulating this kind of voluntary work. We shall have to find a way of giving help while maintaining the full independence and usefulness of these kind of bodies.
Day centres are a valuable new development. Bournemouth is not the only town that has one, although Bournemouth has a fine one, about which I was happy to read in The Guardian, and to hear described today. These centres make an extraordinary contribution towards combating loneliness among the elderly and making it easier for relatives to keep their old people at home. Often the elderly do not know what to do with themselves during the day, and they do not want to move from their homes if they are a little frail. Day centres contribute to solving many of the problems. Last year there were about 115 day centres—that is the latest available figure—and they are expected and planned to grow in number to about 430 by 1973.
The hon. Member asked what I did about co-ordination. Inevitably many Departments are involved in this work. Unless we have one vast Department we must have the work divided up into matters concerning the Departments of Health, Housing, Social Security, Public Building and Works, in some aspects, Transport and the Scottish Office. It has fallen to my lot to try to combine and co-ordinate the work of these bodies and not to try—as I do not, in any way—to become an overlord. Naturally, proper independence must be allowed to all these Departments. On that their answerability to Parliament depends, and it is important that they should be responsible in their own fields.
Co-ordination proceeds sometimes by consultation on specific points. Sometimes I consult a specific Department or a group of Departments. Often we meet together. I am proud of the fact that I have a minute staff, and I would have thought that hon. Members opposite


would have applauded this. I have a staff of three, although I have access to the staffs of other Departments, and of the Cabinet Office. Nevertheless, I am still staffed without having added to the number of civil servants. In my view we manage this co-ordinating fairly well. It is not always an easy job.
On the whole we can claim that we are making progress along the whole front, and that we will advance further. We are not complacent, and cannot be. However much we do there will always be more to do. Indeed, the chief motive power of progress in this field is always to be raising our standards, so that we are always behind what we set ourselves to do. Each time we advance and solve problems we must set new standards and create new problems. This is essential.
That is why we welcome criticism, if we do not always regard it as well-informed. We particularly welcome the pioneering work which is done by independent and voluntary bodies, who think up things that we have not thought of. Sometimes we may be shocked by disclosures. The capacity to be shocked is a measure of our moral obligation in this field. However much progress we make I hope that we shall always be capable of being shocked, as a country, by disclosures. However high standards are raised there will always be some people who are below them, and we must buckle down to the never-ending task of raising our social standards ever higher.

Mr. Walter Harrison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRICES AND INCOMES (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 3.—(IMPOSITION OF STANDSTILL AFTER PUBLICATION OF BOARD'S REPORT.)

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 33, after 'order', to insert:
'in respect of an award or settlement'.
If I may hazard a guess, I would think that one of the reasons why you have seen fit to select this among all the Amendments which you have selected,

Mr. Speaker, is that it raises a question of principle which has not hitherto been discussed in our proceedings, either in Committee or on Report. That question of principle arises from the fact that this is the first Amendment which seeks to treat an Order in respect of prices different from one in respect of wages—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes, 126.

Division No. 443.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, T, Alec (Rhondda, West)


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Aroher Peter
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Ashley, Jack
Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, M.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birmingh'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
Luard, Evan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander w. (York)


Boardman, H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. p. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Albert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Boston, Terence
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McCann, John


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Macdonald, A. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamling, William
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Cant, R. B.
Hannan, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Chapman, Donald
Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie


Coe, Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Mapp, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Mason, Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Hilton, W. S.
Maxwell, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, J. J.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Horner, John
Mikardo, Ian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howell, Dents (Small Heath)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howie, W.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hoy, James
MoHoy, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, L.
Moonman, Eric


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythershawe)


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dell, Edmund
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Neal, Harold


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Norwood, Christopher


Dobson, Ray
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Albert E.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orme, Stanley




Oswald, Thomas
Rosa, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric G.


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurence
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Whitaker, Ben


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Short, Mrs, Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Snow, Julian
Winnick, David


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rees, Merlyn
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Reynolds, G. W.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woof, Robert


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick
Yates, Victor


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Walter Harrison and


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Charles Grey.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Alrey


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grieve, Percy
Pardoe, John


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bessell, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Peyton, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Gordon
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Prank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne valley)


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, C. B.
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Elliott, R. w. (N c tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Mr. Bernard Weatherill

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Mikardo: I feel a bit like the Sorcerer's Apprentice. A few moments ago you were good enough to call me to move the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I began to address the House in my usual tones of dulcet moderation, but before I had said a dozen words a number of hon. Members opposite became very

excited and started shouting "No". Bells started to ring and our proceedings were upset.
However, now that we have resumed I repeat that the Amendment raises a new question in our discussions on the Bill. It is the first which seeks to apply different treatments to an Order made in respect of a wages award and settlement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have the Amendment discussed against a background buzz of conversation.

Mr. Mikardo: The Amendment seeks to apply different treatment to an Order made in respect of an award or settlement of a wage claim from that of an Order which imposes a standstill on prices. Hitherto in all our discussions such changes as have been sought to be made in the Bill have applied equally to Orders about wages and Orders about prices.
Therefore, I think that I am under an obligation to explain why my hon. Friends and I seek to make this differentiation. The subsection puts some limitation upon the time within which an Order shall be made after a reference to the Board. It is not necessary for me to go into great detail, because the subsection is very clear, unlike some others. The effect of the Amendment would be to apply that limitation to an Order made in respect of an award or settlement without its being applied to an Order made about prices.
In our debates on the Bill a number of my hon. Friends have criticised the Government's prices and incomes policy or, as we said last night, its so-called prices, productivity and incomes policy. I say "so-called" because productivity has been carefully excluded from the Bill by the Government's own action.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I, too, know the Sorcerer's Apprentice. The hon. Gentleman must keep his broom inside the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: I shall try to do so, Mr. Speaker.
A number of my hon. Friends have criticised the policy which the Bill seeks to put into effect on the grounds that whereas it is called the Prices and Incomes Bill, as was its predecessor, and the policy is ostensibly one for the control of incomes and prices, in our opinion the Government's action over the control of incomes has been more widespread, more comprehensive, more thorough and more direct—

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of what I said. We are not discussing the Prices

and Incomes Bill. We are discussing an Amendment about the differential in certain time limitations.

Mr. Mikardo: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my point, to explain why it is that those of us who are responsible for the Amendment think it right to invite the House to treat Orders about prices differently from Orders about wages. The reason is that we feel that under the father of this Act, some of which is enshrined in its son, the present Bill, the action taken in implementation of the provisions about prices has been more thorough, more direct and more effective than that taken about incomes. Therefore, we seek to have the Amendment in order to redress this imbalance. The Clause speaks of references made and Orders made about prices and incomes—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Surely my hon. Friend means that his emphasis is on the fact that the Act as it is at present operated is being more effective against incomes than against prices?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have managed to get the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) back into order. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) must not tempt him to get out of order again.

Mr. Mikardo: I can always deal with my enemies. I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from my friends. We have had—as you know, Mr. Speaker, because you have stayed up late with the rest of us on more than one occasion—many debates in the House after 10 o'clock at night about Orders made under the parent Act under the provision parallel to the one that we are now discussing in Clause 2 limiting wages. We have had only one such Order limiting prices, and that a totally ineffective one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair never seeks to cramp debate as long as the debate is in order. If the hon. Gentleman will look at his Amendment he will see that he must address himself to the question of the differentiation between the two groups that he is talking about so far as the six months


is concerned. We cannot discuss the whole attitude of the hon. Gentleman to the Bill. [Interruption.]

Mr. Mikardo: I thought that that was precisely what I was doing, Mr. Speaker, and in all humility I still think that that was precisely what I was doing. Notwithstanding the neanderthal belly-rumblings of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), I still think that that was what I was doing. If I may recapitulate, the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that Orders about prices are treated differently from Orders about wages in one respect which I need not detail. If it had been—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Member. It is the one respect that matters. This is what we are discussing.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Keep in order.

Mr. Mikardo: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Since you insist, I will spell it out. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, whereas there is a limitation of six months in the time after a reference in which an Order can be made about prices, there will be no such limitation in respect of any Order made about wages.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make it easier for the Government to introduce orders about prices than orders about wages. We seek this objective in order to correct the imbalance which has existed in the opposite direction. I hope that, in spelling it out I have kept, as I believe I have, within the rules of order. There has been an imbalance and the contrary imbalance we seek to introduce by the Amendment is designed to correct it.

Mr. Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar (M r. Mikardo), because there is obvious difficulty in propounding the arguments for the Amendment without going into greater length than might be implied by the wording. The point of the Amendment is to do exactly what was brought out under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in the final passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is to give a specific

and different aspect in the treatment of orders affecting prices from the treatment of orders affecting wages.
The problem is that the hon. Gentleman presupposes, without any specific argument, that there has already been a differentiation between prices and wages and that it is the wages aspect which has suffered. I do not believe this to be so. Many people consider that there has been as much, if not greater, activity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot rebut that part of the argument of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) which was out of order. He must now come to the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I was rebutting that piece of the hon. Gentleman's argument that you suggested he should put. I hoped that might be in order. In other words, it concerns the argument that the Amendment is needed because of the different treatment there has been between wages and prices. The Amendment can only be logically argued if there has been differentiation. If there has been no differentiation, the Amendment should automatically fall. I am trying, on this narrow point, to stay in order.
If there is no differentiation, the Amendment would create a specialised class. I therefore want to ask a number of questions of the Government about the possibility of a specialised class. Do the Government accept the argument that there is this differentiation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be fair to both sides of the House. The argument before us is whether the six months restriction in the passage which it is sought to be amended shall apply to one group rather than to both groups. The hon. Member must address himself to that.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: On a point of order. If you, Mr. Speaker, insist on making it impossible for hon. Members trying to take part in the debate to point to any experience that there had been a heavy concentration on the control of wages and far less on the control of prices, the debate would become impossible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) can address himself to the Amendment without discussing his opinion of the whole Bill.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Speaker, I accept your direction. If it appears that I was getting out of order I will start from the initial steps again. The position on the Amendment is whether there should be a differentiation between two classes of people. The argument is that there is a stronger case for this proposal than there is for prices. I am sorry if I mention prices, but it is the only other aspect in the Bill.
Do the Government consider that this legitimate argument is based on enough reason for the Amendment?

Mr. Mikardo: Of course they do not.

Mr. Emery: I thought I knew the views of the hon. Member for Poplar before he gave them to me.
Would not the Minister agree that the aspects of the control of wages are much easier to control, whether the six months period applies or not, than those affecting prices? This Amendment, is a means to try and create a specialist class because of the difficulties in the minds of certain people on the control of prices.
Supporters of the Amendment nod. However we are not in complete agreement about the action which should be taken, but I am propounding the Amendment as they would wish. Therefore, it is right and proper to ask the Government whether they consider that the argument propounded by the hon. Member for Poplar is sufficient to create the specialist class. That is a fair question to put before anybody comes to a decision about this proposal. Although the wording may not be the exact drafting that the hon. Gentleman would want, but would he consider including a reference to productivity in an Amendment which he might draft to meet the point? I will not go over the whole of the arguments which we had previously.

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to go into them. We have dealt with that subject.

Mr. Emery: I will demonstrate how I can stay in order by mentioning pro-

ductivity. If there is no productivity aspect to the Amendment, it must be defeated, and that must be the strongest argument for defeating it, but if it would give special treatment to a special category because of productivity arrangements, that must be a strong argument for it.
10.30 p.m.
The Amendment deals with a differentiation between two classes and creates a specialist section. I would support the Amendment only if it could be shown that the benefit resulting from any increased productivity would accrue to the whole community, and the Bill is an attempt to benefit the whole community. If it could be shown that would happen as a result of increased productivity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must try to keep to the Amendment. The Amendment separates two classes; it does not separate them at all in respect of productivity.

Mr. Emery: Of course I realise that, but—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman cannot keep to the Amendment according to the rules which I have laid down, I must ask him to sit down.

Mr. Emery: May I continue with the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, because it is important? I suggest that it creates two classes. It is impossible to argue that we should create a specialist class without referring to the other. If that is not in order, I do not know what possibly can be in order in this debate.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mere noise does not affect the Chair at all. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a statement of fact.

Mr. Emery: At least I can be in order by stating fact.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Not all facts are in order.

Mr. Emery: That may be so.
The Amendment can be supported only if it is shown to be necessary to create a specialist category, and the only reason for doing that would be to produce an increase in productivity which would


benefit the whole community. I do not want to refer to any further reasons for propounding support of the Amendment.
The second question is whether greater imbalance between the two sections, one would now be made a specialist section, would result from the Amendment? If it is the Government's view that the imbalance would be greater, that would be relevant to considering whether to support the Amendment.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if we have come into conflict. That is the last thing that I would want to do. I have attempted, as much as is humanly possible, to pose two specific questions on this Amendment, because I earnestly and sincerely believe that without the answers we cannot come to a decision. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour can give me these answers.

Mr. Orme: As I see this Amendment, and I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in keeping in order, its purpose is to place the emphasis on prices as opposed to incomes. We seek to delete the effect on incomes but to leave the powers in respect of prices. We do that, and this is where we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have seen eye to eye with us on occasions, because we are of the opinion that prices should be dealt with separately.
Many of us are in favour of punitive Clauses against prices, but not against incomes. Let us state the facts as they are. During the whole of our proceedings we have spoken frankly on this issue. Our argument is that when one is dealing with prices, one is dealing with commodities, whereas with incomes, one is dealing with individuals. That is the basic difference.
We would like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to tell us the number of orders issued against prices in the previous Act, as opposed to incomes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the general statement that the hon. Gentleman has made. He must now come to his own Amendment, which seeks to make a specific differentiation between prices and incomes on the one hand

and awards or settlements on the other in respect of the six months.

Mr. Orme: The effect of this Amendment in relation to the six months is to throw the emphasis on to prices, as opposed to incomes. It would delete six months in relation to incomes, but retain it in relation to prices. It is on that basis that I support the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I will certainly do my best to speak to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I can understand the Amendment. [Interruption.] Whether I can make the Chair appreciate that I understand it and keep in order is another matter. This Amendment makes it clear that its supporters wish to keep prices down and allow wages to rise. This is an incredible economic philosophy, even for hon. Members opposite. There are people who are in favour of a prices and incomes policy with a certain amount of compulsion, there are those in favour of a policy which is mainly voluntary, and there is the Leader of the House with a prices and incomes policy that is almost all compulsory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is now embarking on a general discussion of prices and incomes. He cannot do that on this Amendment. It is concerned with six months' policy in relation to prices on the one hand and salaries and wages on the other.

Mr. Lewis: After the Rulings given when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, you will now understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we were uncertain when we started to speak on this Amendment we now completely understand what we are supposed to be speaking about. If I have to make a case against the Amendment, I must attempt to persuade the House of what would happen if it were passed. This is important because we have to vote either for or against the Amendment. If it is passed it will be in the Bill and we have to know what will happen if it is included in the Bill.
I have the word of hon. Members opposite to the effect that if it is in the Bill prices will be dealt with much more harshly than wages. There will be a


position in which wages are allowed to rise for six months without any let or hindrance, whereas prices will be kept down.

Mr. Mendelson: This is the background of a voluntary wages policy as organised by the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must take one intervention at a time, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend gave way to me. In those circumstances, with great respect to the Chair, I am sure that the Chair will agree that I have a right to be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has not been the practice of the Chair to allow two interventions at the same time, with great respect to the hon. Member. He may make an intervention later. I am sure that his hon. Friend will allow him to make it in due time.

Mr. Lewis: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in due course. In answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) we cannot accept a blank cheque. We do not know whether the voluntary system will work either on prices or wages. I certainly hope that it will, and all of us on this side of the House are agreed that this is the system we prefer. If this Amendment is included in the Bill, three things will happen. First, if we allow wages to rise and keep down prices, inflation will become rampant. Hon. Members opposite may want this, but the country will very soon be in a very serious balance of payments situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that what the hon. Member is saying may be important, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment, which is that in one case orders must be made within six months and in the other they may be made after a longer period.

Sir Edward Brown: On a point of order. Because of the difficulty over this Amendment and the debate which

will follow, could the Chair give some guidance as to how wide or narrow the debate may be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair has been striving to indicate very definitely in the last 20 minutes that the scope of debate on this Amendment is very limited indeed.

Mr. Burden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of the House in understanding this Amendment shows what an absolute nonsense the whole Bill is?

Mr. Lewis: I would not cavil at that. Within the limits, and I am trying to keep within the limits, I have to project what would happen if this Amendment were carried and included in the Bill. I have said that inflation would be rampant. I go on to the next result of the Amendment being included in the Bill. The next result would be that profits would disappear. Hon. Members opposite may think that this is a very good thing.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This has nothing to do with whether an order is made within six months or not, which is the only purpose of the Amendment. I am afraid that Mr. Speaker was quite definite in his Ruling, and I think it would be very unfair to other hon. Members who have not been allowed to widen the debate if the hon. Member were allowed to do so. If he does not speak to the Amendment I am afraid he must resume his seat.

Mr. Lewis: If because of this Amendment there is a situation where prices are kept down, which is the wish of hon. Members opposite and the purpose of the Amendment, but wages are allowed to rise—which is what hon. Members opposite want, which is what they have themselves said—then wages can come only out of profits, because they will not come out of rises in prices.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause and has not begun to understand the Amendment. May I just tell him that, far from what he said, if the Amendment is carried as many orders can still be made against wages as against prices, and just as tough; they just have to be made a bit quicker, that is all.

Mr. Lewis: That is the time difference which would create the kind of situation which I have suggested hon. Members opposite wish to secure through their Amendment, and whether they wish to secure it or not, this, at any rate, would be the result. If profits disappear, then, of course, the Chancellor does not get his money; the Revenue suffers; taxation then has to go—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist that the hon. Member comes to the Amendment. What he has just said has nothing to do with the Amendment at all.

Mr. Lewis: If I may conclude, this Amendment seeks, as we understand it, to create a difference between the treatment of wages and the treatment of prices. I cannot think that such an Amendment would be of any assistance in improving the position of the workers, quite apart from an improvement in the general prices and incomes policy, and I hope that we shall have a better case than has been made up to now for the Amendment, because I am beginning to wonder whether hon. Members opposite understand their own Amendment. We had two very short speeches on this Amendment, and since you have been so restrictive in allowing us to develop our arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the Chair which is restrictive. It is the Amendment which is restrictive. I hope the hon. Member will conclude his remarks.

Mr. Lewis: In so far as we have been confined within the narrow limits of this Amendment, it would help us if we had a better explanation that we have had hitherto from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. John Biffen: This obviously is an Amendment which does cause a certain amount of concern and possibly equivocation in the minds of hen. Members, perhaps in all parts of the House, and therefore I should like to offer my interpretation of it, perhaps to find that there may be some broad, unexpected agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), if for possibly different reasons.
This Amendment seeks to amend a Clause which has as its title
Imposition of standstill after publication of Board's report.
The subsection to which the Amendment applies reads as it now stands:
… nor shall an order be made as aforesaid more than six months after the date of publication of that reference. …
The reference refers to the action of the Minister assigning the task of an investigation into a price or an income to Mr. Aubrey Jones, and there is the widespread assumption always that the answer will come up within the six months' period, anyway, because the standstill will be automatic during the period while the proposed change is under investigation.
As I see it, one consequence of the Amendment would be to say that, by inserting
in respect of an award or settlement",
hon. Gentlemen opposite rightly question the ability of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to conduct the kind of detailed investigation which very often the determination of an income requires within a period of six months. This is not a false proposition, because we have much experience of the time taken by the Board in the case histories which have been established already, and the whole kernel of this Amendment concerns time.
There are one or two past references to the Board which help us to understand the validity of the arguments of the hon. Member for Poplar. The pay of industrial civil servants was gazetted on 26th October, 1965, but it was submitted to the Minister only on 17th June, 1966. That involved a period of seven months. What every hon. Member has to ask himself is what moral pressure will be brought upon any employer or trade unionist not to anticipate the findings of the Board and go ahead with an agreed claim, notwithstanding the fact that the six months' standstill period has expired because the National Board for Prices and Incomes has not yet reported. I believe that the Amendment has a very real bearing on the problem, and the silence of the hon. Member for Poplar confirms that my interpretation is correct.
When one thinks of complex issues such as the pay of those employed in the


retail drapery industry, one is right to have a lively sympathy with the Amendment. But I ask my hon. Friends not to be too generous in their charity to hon. Members opposite, because, by including just the words
in respect of an award or settlement",
they assume that the complexity in determining the problems of an increase in income in some way is easier than that of determining an increase in price. Again, reference to the case histories established by the activities of Mr. Jones and his consultants tells us that this is a false distinction.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that, under Part IV, there had been only one order laid against prices, and, of course, that was in respect of laundry and dry cleaning charges. But that is an interesting case, because it was one of the price increases which were put to Mr. Jones and his aides. The date of gazetting was 7th January, 1966. It was submitted to the Minister on 5th September, 1966. A period of eight months elapsed there.
That is not the only one. I have here the distribution costs of fresh fruit and vegetables. It was gazetted on 6th October, 1966, and submitted to the Minister on 20th April, 1967, again a period of just over six months. Therefore, though I have every sympathy with the motives which have prompted the hon. Member for Poplar to move the Amendment, in as much as he rightly sees that the time which has been allotted to the Board may create a situation in which, inevitably, the Board will take longer than the standstill period of six months, I think that hon. Gentlemen are being unfair to seek to confine their good intentions to awards and settlements. Although they are right in saying that this legislation contains penal provisions against wage increases, there is scope for retrospection in wage increases, as agreed in the article in the New Statesman. I do not want to pursue this any further, because I have kept in order so far, which I think is miraculous. Throughout all these proceedings there is instinctively a desire to try to ensure some parity of misery. There is only one answer to the Bill—its total repudiation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I hoped that I could begin the debate without going through in any detail the consequences of the Amendment, because I understand very well that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is to debate a system whereby the treatment of prices should, might, or could, be different from the treatment of incomes.
I think that the nature of the debate makes it essential that I spend at least two minutes saying what I think—indeed I know—the Amendment means, because there has been a good deal of confusion about its meaning. If I thought that there was any need for clarification, I was confirmed in that view by the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).

Mr. Biffen: Every word that I said was in order, and therefore it cannot have been totally irrelevant.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that every word he said was in order, but, equally, every word that he said was wrong, and I want to explain why. Not even that early intervention will prevent me from saying what I wanted to say from the moment the hon. Gentleman sat down, namely, my sincere conviction that if he got the details of the Amendment wrong there is some obligation on me to clarify it to the House, because I understand his interest in and understanding of these things.
The hon. Gentleman knows, and I am sure that the House does too, that the Clause refers to a standstill which comes about after a reference has been made to the Board on voluntary terms, and where the increase in price or wages has been implemented in a way which is not in conformity with the Board's report.
That standstill, put into operation under those terms, is limited by two precise qualifications. First—and this is the point which totally invalidates everything that was said by the hon. Gentleman—the Board must, under Section 19(1) of the 1966 Act, report within three months. If the Board does not report within that time, the standstill cannot go ahead. I am sure the House will understand, therefore, that any argument based on the principle that the


time for submitting reports will be more protracted than three months is irrelevant, though in order.
The second qualification, which is relevant to the point my hon. Friend seeks to make, is that the Order must be made within six months of the reference to the Board.

Mr. Biffen: The burden of the case which I argued, if not at great length this evening, certainly on other occasions, is that the whole power of so-called moral persuasion will be to oblige trade unions or employers to standstill their prices if the Board is unable to meet the deadline of three months, or even of six months, so that point stands.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member does well to refer to the speeches he made on other occasions rather than the one he has made this evening. I shall try to meet those points as I reach the end of what I hope will be a comparatively short speech. The Amendment simply seeks to alter the powers, in terms of date, whereby the reference can be made to the Board. My hon. Friend, by wishing to add the extra words, qualifies it in such a way that an Order can be made in relation to a Board report which is made prior to the Clause coming in to operation, and because of the nature of the Amendment—because of the words he seeks to insert—the net effect would be that an Order which refers to prices could be backdated indefinitely. The House will understand that in a sense we are discussing the potential powers of retrospection that the Clause involves.
The results of the successful amendment of the Bill, in terms suggested by my hon. Friend, would be that a question referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes during any time since the passing of the parent Act—during the time since 12th August, 1966—could now be the subject of an Order. If the Amendment is not carried a reference to the Board would have to be dated, in terms relevant to the Act now under discussion.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The Bill now under discussion.

Mr. Hattersley: If I did not say "the Bill now under discussion" I should have done. Hon. Members will be aware

that other Clauses enable the Bill to be made operative from the time the Bill passes through this House. Therefore, the distinction that my hon. Friend seeks to draw is that whilst references to the Board, in terms of wages, earnings and incomes can be made into standstills if those references were made between the period of enactment of the Bill and the end of its life, references to the Board which concern price increases could be turned into standstills and used for prolonged standstills when references to the Board had been made at any time since 12th August, 1966.
That is why I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to talk about Orders made during the time he seeks to make retrospective powers apply to the Bill. I understand why he wants to extent the powers of the Bill not forwards but backwards in time. He seeks to extend them backwards because he feels that there have been omissions and deficiencies during the period which he now seeks to extend. I understand that the omissions to which he refers are those which he believes will be apparent when the House or when he or the Government review the omissions during the retrospective period to which the Amendment is related—omissions which he believes are revealed by comparisons between Orders relating to prices and Orders relating to incomes.
Last night I was invited by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to concede on other Amendments that the purpose and intention of putting them down was honourable, sensible and intended no more than to draw the attention of the House to the legitimate fears and interests of the hon. Gentlemen whose names appeared against the Amendments. I am glad to make that concession—if it is a concession. I am glad to acknowledge that state of affairs once again and to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar that I understand very well that his argument on the Amendment is not only serious but totally consistent. One of the happy events last night was the sight of my hon. Friend hurrying into the Government Lobby in order to support the Government's belief that the powers under this Bill should be concerned with retail prices as well as with many other matters which it is designed to control. I think


that our happiness would have been complete had the hon. Gentleman actually managed to vote with the Government instead of being locked out two moments before his attempts to come to our aid in our time of trouble would have been successful. However, he was frustrated by the rules governing our procedures.
I hope that the consistency which he has shown will be reflected in the attitude of the hon. Gentleman when he comes to speak about the Amendment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Stop lecturing the House.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman is enough of a didactic Member, and, now that he been good enough to arrive—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has told me that, if he wants to sit here till tea-time, he will. I hope that the House understands that decisions about the Bill and as to the time we should take in considering it ought to depend on a rather more objective criterion than whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is temporarily annoyed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little away from the Amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: I return to the point I was making. The hon. Gentleman is entirely consistent in his attitude towards prices and in his enthusiasm for making sure that, during the period which he now wishes to cover, the retrospective period stretching from now back to 12th August 1966, parity between the Government's attitude to prices and their attitude to incomes should be achieved. The Government's contention is that, while we sympathise with his point of view, and while we understand it perfectly well—

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He keeps referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) as the hon. Gentleman, and I understand him also to refer to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) as the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was his hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. Is he not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an intervention, not a point of order.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government believe that, while my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar is right in expressing some concern about maintaining parity during the retrospective period under review, the Amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. In our view, during the retrospective period under review, parity or equality has, in fact, been maintained. In examining the retrospective period under review, one should examine it not in terms of Orders made during that time but in terms of prices held down as opposed to wages held down. Throughout the twelve months to which the Amendment refers, it has never been the Government's case that judgment of our success in terms of holding either wages and incomes or prices should be, or could be, measured in terms of the Orders which were made formally to limit them and the Prayers made against those Orders and debated in the House.

Mr. Mikardo: Or the number of Orders withdrawn.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend knows that 14 Orders were made restricting wages or salaries during the retrospective period which he seeks to cover, and, equally, he knows that only one Order was made against prices during that period. But I hope he knows also or, if he does not, I hope that he will begin to remember—that during the same period my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has been successful in holding down prices in a rather less obvious or visible, but no less important, fashion.
On at least 170 occasions, my right hon. Friend, by his intervention, has persuaded manufacturers or retailers—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance as to whether the hon. Gentleman is in order? The speech of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in moving the Amendment did not discuss retrospective Orders at all. He said in terms that he wanted to redress the balance in the months to come over what had happened in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary is now dealing with the past and with retrospective Orders which are not relevant on this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was addressing his arguments to why these should be treated similarly, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has yet said has been out of order, although I was listening to him very carefully.

Mr. Hattersley: I sincerely apologise to the House for my constant reiteration of "during the period referred to by the Amendment", but I do it to remind myself that it is that period to which I must refer, and that it is that period that keeps me in order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar will recall that only a moment ago I told him that very many price stabilisations have occurred during that period through the personal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his predecessor, and they have come about in a way which, while not as obvious as the Orders which have limited wage and salary in-et eases, has nevertheless made a significant contribution towards stabilising the cost of living and to achieving the right balance of incomes and prices policy.
It is our essential contention that if the prices and incomes policy is to work the two elements—prices and incomes—must he treated equally, that it is not possible to organise a successful policy which does not offer the same equality of treatment—what the hon. Member for 03westry chooses to call "equality of suffering"—of prices on the one side and wages on the other.

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to "the right balance", are we to assume from his argument that the right balance—the one that he at any rate accepts as right—has been the upward movement of retail prices as measured by the Retail Price Index over this period and the almost flat, if not downward, movement of wage earnings as measured by the Ministry of Labour over the period? Is that the right relationship which he hopes to perpetuate in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ought to say that I think the hon. Gentleman will get out of order if he goes into an analysis of price and wage movements in that period.

Mr. Hattersley: The right balance certainly is to preserve equality of treatment. It is to make sure that any manufacturer understands that he is subject to the same rules, regulations and penalties, which, if not the same, are intended to produce the same element of deterrence, as any trade unionist, any individual and any executive who chooses to increase his wage or salary in defiance of the prices and incomes policy.
Therefore, while we principally suggest that the retrospective element contained in the Amendment which allows us to make Orders against price increases stretching back to 12th August, 1966 is unnecessary because we have been just as keen to hold down prices as wages—perhaps in some ways we have been a good deal keener to hold down prices than wages—the other argument that we put forward is that it is not possible to advance during the next year on terms which would clearly make our policy directed much more solidly, severely and determinedly against price increases than against wage increases. If the prices and incomes policy is to be a success, it will be because it has twin arms doing the same jobs simultaneously in a way complementary to each other. It must be visibly the case that we are operating the same rules, compulsion and holding operation against prices as against wages.

Mr. Mikardo: Tell that to the G.L.C. electors.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand very well that there have been occasions when my right hon. Friends and I and the Government as a whole have not done as much as we should do in making clear how successful our intervention in the prices field has been. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that one of the new aspects of our policy—

Sir E. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rose to question with you how wide and narrow the debate should be, and you gave me some very clear guidance, that, while you could not express an opinion on the Amendment itself, the debate was narrow in respect of it. I respectfully remind you that at the present moment we are listening to a wide dissertation on the Amendment by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to apply the same rules to all hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will probably have seen me sitting on the edge of my seat, about to intervene in the Minister's speech. The Minister was getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: It may happen that one of the changes in the policy will be for actions against prices to become more obvious. However, the Government could not contemplate a change which invoked making our attitude towards price increases different from our attitude towards wage increases. Since the essential element in this policy is one of equal treatment between the two arms of the policy, and since the Amendment would discriminate in one specific respect, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: This has been a remarkable debate. Anybody who thinks that the ordinary man in the street, employer or trade unionist, will know for what he is volunteering, is not aware of the realities of the situation. Seldom have I heard the Parliamentary Secretary less comprehensible.
There was some discussion between the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) about how long we were likely to proceed with the Bill tonight. I wish to make it abundantly clear that my hon. Friends and I will continue to debate each Amendment and provision in detail, as we have done throughout the Bill's stages and as we did when debating the parent Measure last year. The House has a duty to examine the complexities of this type of legislation and to stress the ambiguities in it.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that 14 Orders had been made under the 1966 Act. I remind him that four of them have been nullified as a result of the bad drafting of that Act, caused by the House being pushed into discussing the Measure, like this one, at great speed. It is difficult for the House to give this sort of legislation the attention it needs when faced with the time-table introduced by the Leader of the House, whose disorganisation has placed Government business in this mess.
With respect to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), his explanation of the Amendment was not all that good. He did not illustrate the detailed complexities of this matter and he failed, where my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) succeeded, to get to the crux of the problem, which is the timing. Instead, he sought to make a distinction between the Government's attitude to price and wage increases. Certainly there has been some imbalance, as the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, and a number of Orders made under the Act, revealed. But does this mean that we must alter the emphasis at present placed on the two arms of the policy? My hon. Friends and I are totally against the policy, on both arms, because it introduces discrimination between the two sets of increases.
Even the side-head to the Clause is not accurately worded. It reads:
Imposition of standstill after publication of the Board's report",
but a later subsection refers to the imposition both before and after, so it is not surprising that consideration of the Amendment has been difficult.
The Clause introduces retrospection, which we oppose, as we do other aspects of the policy. The period of retrospection for wages as against prices should not be altered, because this would suggest that the Board would take longer to reach a decision on one than on the other. This is an odd Clause for the hon. Member for Poplar and his hon. Friends to use to mount a major attack, and this would not be a sensible Amendment. We completely oppose the policy, but to amend the Bill in this way would make it an even greater nonsense. Whether this would be better or worse, I leave to hon. Members, but I hope that my hon. Friends will not support the Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: There is a great difference between wages and prices and totally different criteria apply. If the Board decided that a manufacturer could not raise prices, he could stop production because it was no longer profitable, but if it said that a wage increase was unjustified, that would have to be accepted, because wages are what a man lives on. This significant difference has not been made sufficiently clear by right


hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. One is a necessity and the other an argument. The argument is about whether it is profitable to continue production because of a Board decision on prices, but workers must accept the refusal of a wage increase because their future depends on that income. Under the Amendment—[Interruption.]

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Order. Keep quiet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will leave the question of order to the Chair.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I could not hear whether you were reproaching me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They were talking deliberately and I could not hear my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir D. Glover: I never have any fears when addressing the House when you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will always give me a fair and proper hearing. If I might say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), the hon. Member for Ormskirk has never been gallant. I have never been returned to this House as a gallant Member. I have never wished to take credit for something which happened just because there happened to be a war on. I have always been returned as Mr. Glover, or later as Sir Douglas Glover.
Hon. Members opposite may be as rude as they like, but they are not being rude to an hon. and gallant Member.
All of us find the Bill technical and difficult to understand. We are trying to assess what is going to happen to prices, incomes and people. With the exception of the hon. Members on the third bench below the Gangway, there are only a few hon. Members here tonight, or who were here last night, who realise that we are talking about people. We are talking about people and their incomes and their standards of living, about what they are going to do and how their families are going to get on.

Sir E. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that the test of sincerity of the seven wise men who put down the Amendment is whether they are prepared to go into the Lobby to support it.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think that that is a test of sincerity. Most of us are old Members of Parliament and know that it takes a good deal of courage to oppose one's party when it is the Government. I have enormous admiration for the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be a test of sincerity of all hon. Members if they listened to the debate.

Sir D. Glover: I have great admiration for the hon. Member for Salford, West, and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). It takes a great deal of courage to oppose the Government when one is supposed to be a Government supporter. I speak as one who has been in the House for many years, much of the time on the Government benches. I do not criticise any hon. Member who does not carry his opposition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would all share the hon. Member's sentiments, but I am afraid that they do not come within the scope of the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was necessary for me to make some remark of that kind.
As hon. Members opposite, probably as a Parliamentary operation, have broken the tenor of my speech, I suppose that they are happy. If I go on for a considerable time collecting the threads, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
11.30 p.m.
I have much sympathy with the attitude of those hon. Members opposite who have moved a number of Amendments, because I do not like the Bill and believe that it is based on a false premise—for in a free society we cannot do these things by legislation. Those hon. Members opposite are nearer to my views than are the Government Front Bench. It is therefore with some hesitation that I say that I cannot support the Amendment. I say that because the Amendment introduces an element of retr6spection, and I have always opposed retrospection in legislation. If the Government have made a mistake, they ought to stand by it and not try to put it right retrospectively by an Amendment introduced a year later. Although in this case there


may be some sympathy for the proposal that we should go back over the ground, it would be a dangerous precedent and would make it more difficult to resist retrospection in other matters about which we felt strongly.
I believe that the original Bill was a nonsense. In this Bill the Government are trying to create order out of chaos, and I am afraid that the Amendment would create less order and more chaos.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: It is with some diffidence that I enter the debate at this stage. My reason for doing so is that I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) saying that a matter of substantial principle was involved in the Amendment, but not having had the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill, even though I listened as diligently, I think, as did any other hon. Member, it was not until the Parliamentary Secretary intervened that I understood the purport and effect of the Amendment. May I comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if hon. Members who move Amendments are to be restricted by the rules of order in saying some of the things which they feel they are entitled to say, it will be easier for those who have not served on the Standing Committee if the effect of the Amendment is explained clearly at an earlier stage than on this occasion.
It seems to me that three questions of principle are involved in the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the issue of principle on which the Government took their stand was that the two arms of the policy—prices and incomes—should be evenly balanced. This was a clear declaration of Government policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) queried the validity of that principle on the ground that it was possible that the examination of the two aspects—prices on the one hand and wages and awards on the other—might take different lengths of time. Having produced interesting factual evidence of the operation of the Board under the Bill, he refuted the argument on the ground that, in both cases, it could be shown that a greater period than six months was involved.
In his turn, the .Joint Parliamentary Secretary refuted my right hon. Friend's argument on the basis that this would not arise under the Amendment. I have been waiting for one of the supporters of the Amendment to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who always speaks with good Lancashire clarity and directness on these matters. The point of principle he raised was that we were not comparing like with like, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggested, and that to compare prices and wages as being like with like was to compare a commodity with a human element.
If I were in any sympathy with the Bill and inclined to try and improve it, I would feel happier if an Amendment on these lines were acceptable to the Government so that they could indicate that there was some difference in their attitude towards the rewards of individuals, which represent 100 per cent. of the sum of happiness of the family, and prices of commodities, which represent a management problem for a commercial undertaking but are a minor element in the budgets of a great many citizens.
The substance of the Amendment is that it shows at least that here one is not dealing with a whole series of cyphers in mathematical calculations but that the Bill affects prices and the rewards of human labour and the return enjoyed by a family. I hoped that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, admittedly beset by rather wide arguments, would indicate the reasons why the two arms of the policy—affecting commodities and commercial transactions on the one hand and the reward of human effort and total disposable family balances on the other—would balance to the same degree throughout the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment. He is getting into a general debate. He must confine himself to the question of the six months.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I will not trespass further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The case for the six-month period is that the family must have a term put to uncertainty but that it should not necessarily be as short as the term of uncertainty to which commerce is exposed. I believe that I have accurately assessed the


feelings of the supporters of the Amendment and am happy to leave the argument at that point.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 34, to leave cut from 'reference' to the end of line 38.
We have already had some discussion as to the exact purpose of the Clause. However, it may help to focus the debate on the Amendment if I refer to what tie right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading. Outlining the Bill, after dealing with Clause 1, he said that it was possible under Clause 2, which we discussed List night, for a price or wage increase which had been made to be set back to tie level prevailing before the Government took action. He went on:
A similar situation could arise, dealt with by Clause 3, where, to begin with, possibly the parties have proceeded in a voluntary manner, have notified the increase and it has been referred to the Board, but then, either before or after the Board has reported, the increase has been put into effect despite the fact that it is not supported by the Board's report. In these circumstances, also, the Government will have power under Clause 3 to put the price or wage back to what it previously was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 331.]
That was the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of Clause 3. It would be helpful if we could have a little more elaborate explanation. This is an extremely complex Bill and this is a particularly difficult Clause.
We have had a number of debates on prices and incomes Orders in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part. I understand that one of the functions of the Clause is to facilitate a particular aspect of that policy under Part IV. In essence, what the Government have sought to do under previous Orders has been to ensure that the Orders would not only freeze prices or wages for the same six months' period to which they hoped others would agree voluntarily, but actually to claw back, as the jargon which we have evolved has it, some of the additional payments which had been made.
Therefore, the Orders have not extended for only the six months' period which would put the particular case on a comparable basis, as the Government would have it, with that of voluntary

cases, but also provided that the freeze should be continued for more than six months, so that the increase which had been paid could be drawn back and so that those who had gone against Government policy should be put on what the Government regarded as a fair basis.

Sir D. Glover: Does this mean that if a wage or price increase has taken place and an Order is then issued, there will be power for that wage or price increase to be rescinded?

Mr. Higgins: This is a fairly difficult point. It did not actually happen with price increases, for the only Order concerned with price increases was that dealing with laundries and dry cleaners. It therefore applies only to some specific wage increase. But it is not, as in Clause 2, a matter of lowering a wage increase which has taken place. It is rather that instead of merely freezing the increase for the period covered by the Order, for six months, the Orders which we have had under Part IV have been for rather more than six months, so that the amount which those concerned have received has been clawed back.
This has been the basic principle of a number of Orders. There are, for instance, the Orders concerned with Birmingham Corporation Transport Department supervisors, Thorn Electrical Industries, the Metropolitan Police, draughtsmen and a number of others which were not taken to court.
11.45 p.m.
Some of these cases have been affected by the fact that the Government have lost cases which have gone to the Court of Appeal and therefore the Government have not succeeded in achieving the objective which I have outlined. In other cases the Government clearly did not have sufficient powers under Part IV of the 1966 Act to achieve that objective, and therefore there is a follow-on period, when they feel that they must take powers, under this Bill, which would enable them, if necessary, to freeze events for six months.
This is the one point covered by the Clause. The object of this Amendment is to delete a particular part of the Clause which says:
… this section shall apply notwithstanding that the Board's report was made, or the relevant increase of prices or charges or


implementation of the award or settlement took place, before the coming into force of this section or the passing of this Act.
As we understand it this means that, even though this House has not yet approved this Bill, nor even approved this Clause, none the less it will be possible for the Government, under this Clause if the Bill is eventually approved, to apply this Clause to impose a standstill after the publication of the Board's report on particular increase, where the Board's report was made, and the increase in prices took place before this Bill came into effect?
We seek to remove those words so that the retrospective aspect of the Clause shall not have effect. It has been a major point of principle in our debates on this Bill that we feel that the element of retrospection introduced by the Government is not merely becoming an unfortunate lapse from time to time, but is becoming a nasty habit. It is an essential part of this policy that the Government seeks to impose action retrospectively with particular wage or price increases. It is particularly because we object to the element of retrospection involved in this Clause that we move this Amendment.
I hope that the House will feel that this is something which is not an unreasonable restraint on this policy. Many of the cases covered by that policy have already been over-ruled by the courts. The whole idea that the Government's policy is universal, fair and equitable has been shown, because they have failed to produce any statistics on the subject, be-because of the decisions of the courts and because of the anomalies created by Clause 2, to be false. To ask for retrospective powers of this kind in order to keep up the pretence, and to maintain the facade that it is universal seems unjustified. For this reason I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support this Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: The House ought to be very suspicious and doubtful about any aspect of retrospective legislation. The State today is a very powerful body and the individual citizen is always at risk. I am not saying that there may not be some particular case where, perhaps in

the interests of national security, or something of that sort, retrospection would not be justified.
The whole of the Government's policy is not bound up with retrospection. The basic aims of the policy in this area will still proceed, more or less unscathed if the Amendment is accepted. There is not only a danger to our democracy and the individual, but in the long run there is a danger that Parliament and our system of democratic government will lose their status when citizens feel that, quite arbitrarily, the Government can decide to put a mistake right—this is particularly so in this case—by retrospection, by deliberately acting against the interests of a small segment of the community.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will understand that I am speaking with sincerity. I could understand the Government refusing this Amendment if accepting it meant that the whole pattern of prices and incomes policy would fall to pieces, but that is not the case. As a result of accepting the Amendment one or two people might get through the net, but the fact that one or two people or organisations got through the net would be far less important than that the public should see us prepared to use the power of the State arbitrarily to alter something which they thought perfectly legitimate and suddenly discovered that by this Clause the law was retrospectively altered. This is a dangerous field of expansion of power of the Executive over the ordinary citizen.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will view the Amendment seriously and realise that there is a constitutional element in it. The State should not go back on its previous pattern whereby ordinary citizens who have done something which, however right or wrong, was at the time within the law and then, because the Government decide that it is convenient to alter the law retrospectively, it is made unlawful.
That is very much adverse to the influence and status of democratic government. In the long run it is detrimental to the status of the House of Commons. I do not think that a very vital principle is at stake, but the status of the democratic assembly is heavily


involved. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in the very clear and cogent observations he has addressed to the House, said that this Amendment raises important constitutional implications, and so of course it does.
It is a prime consideration of English Statute law to seek to avoid retrospection. Over the years I have been in this House I have on several occasions raised my voice, right through the days of the Attlee Government, against proposals to introduce a retrospective element into our Statute law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will probably confirm that it was rarely done so blatantly in the days of the Attlee Government as in the four lines which this Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill. I have rarely seen retrospection proclaim itself so nakedly and unashamedly as in this Bill as drafted. The Government should have regard to the violence they are doing to well-established principles.
It rests, of course, on very basic and elementary considerations, the feeling that we do not, in English Statute law, or British Statute law, legislate retrospectively. In the first place, it offends against the doctrine of certainty. In this country people are presumed to know the law—an increasingly irrational presumption, in some ways, considering its growing complzxity—but nevertheless it is still a maxim, Ignorantia legis haud excusat. If there be not certainty in the law, then that maxim goes, because nobody can be presumed to understand that which is not fixed but is still liable to be changed against him hereafter.
The other reason is that it does great violence to the doctrine of the sanctity of contract and of accrued rights, and so on. This is put very clearly in the leading textbook on the interpretation of Statutes, Maxwell on the "Interpretation of Statutes", page 204 of the eleventh edition:
Upon the presumption that the Legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain Statutes retrospective operation.

There then follows a very telling sentence in Latin which at this late hour and in the absence of the Attorney-General, who seems to have withdrawn for the time being, I will not—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that if the Minister without Portfolio could be woken up he might understand it?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman has a distinguished academic background, but he was, as I have reason to know, a history don and not a classical don at Christ Church in the days when my right hon. Friend and I were seeking to assimilate knowledge.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He is also asleep.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is tempting me into fields of retrospection, and even his persuasiveness must fall short of success in that.
But I therefore endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, that there is a very considerable constitutional point here, and that it is very sad and serious that the Government should progressively take it for granted that they can introduce these retrospective provisions into Measures such as this, dealing, as they do, with people's incomes and with prices which they pay, things which touch very nearly the heart of our social and economic existence. I would warmly second what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, that the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, should think again, and, in order to expedite our progress in this rather wearisome night, think again quickly.

Mr. John M. Temple: This is the first time I have spoken on this legislation. When I have come in and listened I have found myself more and more baffled, but I had, with the Minister responsible for this legislation, considerable correspondence only recently about retirement pensions and the effect on retirement pensions of the prices and incomes standstill. As I have listened this evening to the proposals of the Government, which would, of course, be amended if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, so that the retrospective action


of this Clause would be taken out, I immediately thought, what would be the effect on retirement pensions which had already been agreed, which were already linked to a particular pay settlement, if there were a piece of retrospective legislation which affected the incomes of persons and the relationship of the retirement pensions to those incomes which those persons had hitherto been having? This was brought to my attention in some recent correspondence with the Minister responsible about a case affecting a certain number of railway pensioners.
12 m.
The Prime Minister had promised an overall increase of 5 per cent. which was to be implemented in two parts. One of the unfortunate retirement pensioners with whom I was in correspondence retired during the period when the first part of the pay increase had been implemented. However, the second part was held up. As a result, my constituent's pension was linked only to the 1½ per cent. increase. The effect of the standstill was that he did not get his full entitlement by way of retirement pension, and I understand that he will never get it.

Sir D. Glover: When we were debating this last night it became clear from both sides of the House that the difference could be anything from £13 to £100 a year for the rest of a pensioner's life.

Mr. Temple: In the case of my constituent, it amounted to 8s. a week, which would be under £25 a year, but my hon. Friend underlines the point that I am trying to make.
I would like the Minister to clear up the position of the retired person whose pension had probably been agreed but who, due to the retrospective action of this Clause, would be denied the retirement pension which had been awarded him. This is becoming a more and more thorny problem, and the Government must face up to it. People are already suffering grave injustices. I do not think that either side of the House would wish the injustices to be perpetuated, and they will be made substantially worse if the Clause is not amended.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Like my hon. Friend the

Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to dip a toe into the chilly waters of this legislation. As I have listened to these debates, I have been struck with the utter futility of any Government attempting to try to interfere with the highly complex matters by which men govern their affairs in the way that this Bill sets out to do.
The lines of the Clause with which the Amendment seeks to deal are an example of the sort of measures to which the Government have recourse in an effort to try and close every loophole in their efforts to control the wages and prices which are paid for services and goods.
I endorse everything which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about retrospective legislation, but I want to draw attention to a curious anomaly which contrasts with the efforts that the Government are making by the closing words of Clause 3(2). They are attempting to impose retrospective legislation in order to catch a recommendation which may have been made before the corning into force of this Act. Yet they are leaving the parties free, retrospectively and by agreement, to adjust any agreement which may have been made to compensate themselves for the delay which has been introduced by reason of the reference of the increase to the Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) drew attention to this in Committee when he quoted from an article in the New Statesman of the 9th June, which said:
Having delayed a wage bargain for seven months while it is investigated by Mr. Jones' team, the Bill leaves it entirely open to the bargainers to arrange retrospective payment to make up for the delay. Retrospection, Ministers blandly admit, could wreck their whole scheme; yet their Bill makes retrospection a respectable trade union objective in every wage dispute.
When commenting on that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
The point that he is on is one of real substance. Probably it comes under Clause 4(2) better than here, but in examining which powers we should seek it was of course possible that we would have asked that there should be no retrospection. This would have meant far more stringent powers than we are asking for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 29th June, 1967, c. 217.]


The point which I am seeking to make is that the Government, by the right hon. Gentleman's admission, recognise that it is impossible to take account of every variation, every vagary in human behaviour, as it would affect the matters covered by the Bill. They have therefore k ft the parties free to compensate themselves, or for the employer to compensate the employees, retrospectively for any delay which may be occasioned by the reference of the matter to the Board, yet here they seek to introduce legislation which will have a retrospective effect on any recommendation made by the Board before the Act comes into force.
This seems to be an utterly ludicrous distinction. Why should the one be left, and the other be attacked? How can it be said that the few cases—and there cannot be many—in respect of which the Board makes a recommendation before the Act comes into force are very important and more worthy to be legislated against than the very much larger number of cases which could arise in which, after seven months have elapsed, the parties could agree to compensate themselves for the delay by making retrospective payments?
This seems to be a curious and utterly illogical anomaly which, as strongly as any of the other constitutional arguments which have been pressed on the House, establishes that the Amendment most assuredly ought to be carried if we are to avoid retrospection.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) prefaced his remarks by saying that this was his first intervention in these debates. Alas, I cannot say the same for myself, but I am very pleased to speak in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and eloquently endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
My right hon. and learned Friend was generous enough to say that it was still a principle that we were presumed to know the law, but the Bill proceeds on an assumption that we are presumed to know the intended wishes of the Government's White Paper, and it is precisely this potentially devastatingly dangerous distinction which lies at the heart of so

much of the opposition which unites certain elements on both sides of the Chamber, although the unity is never consummated in the Division Lobby.
I support the Amendment. [Interruption.] It may be distasteful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), but at least my remarks about his interjection will ensure that one comment from the Liberal Party is recorded.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I assure the hon. Member that the matter to which I referred as being distasteful is not the matter to which he has just referred. This is not the only occasion on which I have been present to hear the debates on the Bill. I had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member make the same speech last night.

Mr. Temple: As many hon. Members did not have the pleasure of hearing the interjection, may we know what interjection has been referred to?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be wiser if the House did not go into that.

Mr. Biffen: After that unexpected squall I should like to return to the point of considerable substance which arises from the Amendment, not in the general principle but in the very likelihood of its application. Already two or three references are before Mr. Aubrey Jones, and may well be the subject of a Board's report before the passing of the Measure. There are two, in particular, to which I wish to refer. The first is that concerning the fabrication of Aluminium Semi-Manufacturers which has been before the Board for some time. The House is entitled to ask itself whether the manufacturers would have co-operated so willingly with the consultants who were appointed for the subcontracting work had they known that this report might be used as a regulatory value by the Government for controlling prices for the next 12 months. They undertook commitments and promised co-operation for a situation which clearly they did not foresee, and could not have foreseen, because the point of time of this reference was so far back.
The second was the recent reference to the Board of the prices of Fletton and non-Fletton bricks. This took place on 26th May, 1967. Some hon. Members


might argue that the Board cannot conceivably produce a report before the passing of this Measure. This can only be supposition on our part. It must depend on the skill and amplitude of the consultants at the disposal of Mr. Aubrey Jones.
But so much of the case of the Government has been based on the supposed voluntary co-operation of these very manufacturing interests. The House might be interested to know of a report mentioned in a Financial Times of mid-June to the effect that
A deputation from the National Federation of Clay Industries, which represents manufactures of non-flettons, complained to the Minister"—
that is, the Minister of Public Building and Works—
yesterday that his recent reference of brick prices to the N.B.P.I. had been made without consulting the industry, although it had cooperated in the early warning system".
So much for the much-vaunted voluntary contact which the First Secretary is always anxious to assure the House exists between him and his advisers and the representatives of trade associations. If a report is published "before the passing of this Act", it will have resulted from a reference in regard to which, certainly in the eyes of the trade association, the expected consultation did not take place, and that report of the Board could become a matter of price standstill.
Those are specific examples of the kind of retrospection which could flow from this legislation unless the Amendment is made, and I cite them in support of the principle which has been elaborated with such force by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Hattersley: It is with genuine trepidation that I essay the task of arguing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on the constitutional proprieties of the Bill, and I hope to postpone my Armageddon a little by speaking first to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in regard to what he described as "clawing back."

One of the many achievements of the hon. Member for Worthing in our debates has been his insinuation of the term "clawing back" into our vocabulary. It is his term, not ours; but, though it does not adequately describe the position, I cannot pretend to invent anything which trips so lightly off the tongue, and I shall, therefore, remind the House of what clawing back means when the hon. Gentleman uses that term, with pejorative intent, to describe our actions.
Clawing back during the period of Part IV of the 1966 Act has had one purpose and intention: where, by one means or other, a party to either a price increase or a wage increase has somehow frustrated the purpose of the prices and incomes policy by avoiding a period of standstill, on the voluntary principle, the Government have chosen to operate an Order which lasts for an equivalent length of time. It is clawing back, in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman uses that term, because it is not necessarily for the actual period for which a voluntary standstill would have been appropriate. It may not be the six months of the period of severe restraint; it may overlap by six weeks. But it is an equivalent period in time, and it is intended to compensate by means of a compulsory Order for the exact amount of time where there should have been a postponement of implementation on a voluntary basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked how that principle will operate in terms of this Clause. He knows the principles on which the Clause itself operates. My right hon. Friend, having seen a wage or price increase which is not in conformity with a recommendation made by the Prices and Incomes Board and which stems from a voluntary standstill which precedes, or perhaps runs at the same time as, the examination of the case by the Board, is then entitled to make an Order which can last for a period of six months. But, the hon. Gentleman is right to imply that if a voluntary period of standstill has operated in a series of ways, it is conceivably possible for the Order, when added to a period of voluntary standstill, to produce a situation in which a party had its price increase or wage increase limited for longer than is the intention. I emphasise that this is possible only if one element


of that limitation is a voluntary element. It is not possible if the entire operation were one organised under Order. The life of the Order there is circumscribed and limited. But, if there is a voluntary element at the beginning of the Order's life, it is conceivable than the limitation might go on for rather longer than the clawing-back principle—to use the hon. Gentleman's term—would justify.
I give an absolute assurance that, if that situation does arise, the only purpose and intention of the Government is to equalise the period to make sure that the compulsory standstill only lasts as long as the voluntary standstill would have done had the parties chosen the path of voluntary co-operation. I am sure that he understands that within the terms and principles of the Bill if we are able to make Orders against people who, once having had their case referred to the Board on a voluntary basis, then choose to implement an award which does not conform with the recommendations of the Board, we must have the ability to operate an Order which lasts for the full period. But I hope that he w ill accept my absolute assurance that if there is a voluntary element of standstill to be added on to it it is certainly not our intention to allow it to operate in such a way that one of the parties will suffer more than the compensatory period warrants.
I turn to the points raised by three hon. Members about the retrospective elements in the Clause. I suggest—I do not do more than suggest—to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the retrospection which appears in the Bill is perhaps not retrospection in the normal sense of the word. Any Order made under the Bill cannot become operative until 12th August. None of the penalties —if that is the word that hon. Members would choose to use—that stem from the operations of the Order could possibly be operated until after 12th August. The retrospective element refers not to the powers but to the datum periods on which the powers are based.
The retrospective element simply refers to the dates on which the prices are increased. It simply refers to the dates on which references to the Prices and Incomes Board are made. The Bill

makes plain that if on the basis of the date the wages or prices were increased and the date of reference to the Board it seems appropriate that an Order should be made, the Order cannot be operative until 12th August, and it is operative simply for the period to which it refers in terms of the original intention, not in terms of its operation. There is a substantial distinction there. It is a distinction which is much more substantial than that between retrospective operation and the alternative in the Amendment discussed before this one. There the retrospective element would have gone back a good deal further and included some of the elements that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the vice of retrospection and the reason why it is normally considered to be incompatible with our statutory position in this country, is that it applies a state of law to something that has already happened which was not the state of law at the time that it happened? That is the vice of retrospection, and that is in the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: Would the hon. Gentleman allow—

Mr. Hattersley: I must, with respect, try to deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point first. I understand very well the point that he is making. He is too kind to give this example. There is little distinction between saying "While it is not a capital offence at the moment to commit offence A, B or C, the element in the Bill is not retrospective because we do not execute you till after 12th August." I understand that point and accept the force of it.
The distinction between the two cases is that there are already a substantial amount of powers available to the Government under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. All we are doing is organising a transition between the operation of Part IV and the operation of Part II. All the people who might contemplate between now and 12th August putting up their prices or implementing a wage increase must know that the prices and incomes legislation, including Part IV, is in operation, and although they may not until they


consider the deliberations of the House tonight understand that they will be subject to a reference to the Board and an Order made after 12th August, they should know that they are liable to the operation of Part IV. All that the Clause is doing, and all that the words that the Amendment seeks to delete are doing, is organising a reasonable transition from one element of compulsion to another. The accusation of retrospection is in some ways mitigated by my suggestion that already many of the powers that the retrospective element suggests, perhaps in a more violent or a more positive form, are available to the Government and that all we are doing is changing them.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman's remarks puzzle me because if all these powers are contained in Part IV, and if Part IV continues in operation until 12th August, what is the purpose of the Clause?

Mr. Hattersley: This provision is necessary because Part IV lapses on 12th August. We are now trying to organise a sensible transition period between the old and the new powers to ensure that we move smoothly from the period of severe restraint—when there existed very much more substantial powers than those we are discussing—to the period when the powers are considerably less substantial. This transition must be organised on a sensible basis.
For the sake of this argument, let us assume—as one must assume in these circumstances—acceptance of the Government's policy and the need for orders occasionally to be made to change, prohibit or postpone wage increases. Suppose that there is a wage or price increase, or a reference to the Board, on 10th August. I should have thought that, in terms of having a sensible incomes policy, it was absolutely right for us to apply the same rules, regulations and obligations on those increases and references as on similar increases and references if they occurred three days after that date.
If the Government wanted to be devious about this, references to the Board might, in certain circumstances, be postponed until after 12th August. But the Government have no intention of getting round the Measure in that way. We want,

fairly and clearly, to operate Part II and to organise a suitable run-up arrangement which will enable us to have a reasonable and sensible transitional period.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No. I have given way a great many times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather make their own speeches, rather than listen to me for too long.
I wish to underline the point I have made in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who asked what sort of assurances and information had been given to the consultants and staff of the Board who are examining the two reports to which he referred. He asked if they realised that they were producing a report which might possibly have the effects outlined in the Clause. While it is unlikely that the powers contained in the Bill were known to the Board—to the consultants who carried out the investigations, if consultants did that work—they knew that they were producing a report which could be the subject of Part IV orders, involving a system of wage and price restraint a good deal more positive than the system we are now discussing. There is no suggestion that they were inveigled into carrying out an operation which they would regard as unattractive. They were engaged on the production of a report, on the basis of which the Government could make decisions about the prices and incomes policy and, I hope, on the basis of which we are organising a smooth transition from the powers of Part IV to those of Part II after 12th August.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman has said not a word about wage-related retirement pensions.

Mr. Hattersley: I did not comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks because this does not operate in the retrospective way he suggested. The period of literal retrospection, between now and 12th August, will not operate in the way he described and will not work detrimentally for pensioners.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Parliamentary Secretary made an extraordinary speech.


I am sorry for him because, on an issue of this importance, the First Secretary should have answered the debate. This topic raises issues which are even more important than the general issues raised by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did his best, but it was not good enough.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is not the normal sort of retrospection—by which, I suppose, he meant that it was not the normal sort of retrospective legislation produced by the present Government. All that the provision did, he said, was to date transactions back to certain dates before the Measure came into force. It is the essence of retrospection to make something an offence which was not an offence when it was done. For him to say, "This is all it does," shows that he does not appreciate the enormity of the Government's actions. The argument that it does not not matter because it will not happen until 12th August could apply to almost any grouse because it will not be shot until then. It is on about the same level as the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), that the Minister without Portfolio could not understand Latin because he was a historian. Even the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a don at Christchurch does not justify so damaging an attack. However, as the Minister without Portfolio was asleep when my right hon. and learned Friend spoke, I will waste no more time on the Sleeping Beauty of the Government.
12.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not give us the practical reason for these words. He is no doubt assuming—I do not know whether he is right—that, despite the incompetence of the Leader of the House, the Bill will soon be law. If so, how many cases would be caught by the Bill which would escape without these words? The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he is asking the House to do something which in principle is repugnant to most of us—

Mr. Hattersley: I want to help the House in what I admit is a difficult issue for me. An answer is not possible, because it depends on a number of variables, one of which is the wage or price increases which might be implemented up to 12th August. Unless we can predict these increases by reading many minds, it is

not possible to say how the powers over the retrospective period might or should be used.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a curious answer, because a Minister at the Ministry of Labour should have some idea. Under a Conservative Government, Ministers at that Ministry had some idea what claims were coming forward and which were likely to be met in the limited period of a week or two. But now a Minister at the Ministry of Labour whose duty it is to be in touch with these matters—and never more so than now, when wage restraint is of the greatest importance—has not the faintest idea. If that is how the Ministry is being conducted now, one begins to understand how the wages problem has got out of hand and why the Government think that they have been driven to the crude expedient of compulsion. His answer would have been reasonable had I asked about the next year, but I did not.
I hope that he realises now that he is seeking unusual powers of retrospection, even under this Government. Yet he blandly tells us, with a helpful smile, that he does not know what he wants them for or whether there is a serious number of cases. The Government blunder on with this proposal, without knowing whether it has any justification. It is absolutely typical of the blundering incompetence with which the legislation was conducted last year, which got the Government into the mess which the Court of Appeal showed up the other day, and which, if the Government go on trying to force through legislation at the last minute and late at night, they will get into again. I hope it will be noticed outside that this has been said. We have a provision which must seem offensive to all who care for the rule of law and the proper regulation of these matters. It is now being put forward without the Minister concerned being able to tell the House that there is a single case that would be better handled if the Government had these powers.
This is quite an extraordinary position. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary, for all the glib assurance of his manner, has understood why it is that so many hon. Members who are not necessarily concerned with the prices and incomes policy are here and opposed to this proposal for retrospection.
It is a serious thing for the House to decide that an act or acts which were lawful at the time they were done should be made unlawful by subsequent Act of this House retrospective to that date. No one is saying that when there are grave matters of public security or safety it should not be done, but surely we all agree that it should only be done when there is a proved necessity for it. Now we know from the Parliamentary Secretary's unhappy intervention that he does not know if there are any cases at all.
This is the wrong way to legislate. It leads to what I hinted at a moment or two ago—a situation in which the First Secretary has to come to the Box and, in reply to a question of mine, say that because he had been seeking to exercise powers which he did not have he had had to withdraw four Orders he had purported to make. This will again be the position if the Government go on in this way. The Courts were rightly critical in the Thorn case, when it was said that it must be clear that Parliament intended it, for the Government to be empowered to interfere with agreements already made. The Government are now asking for the same power and they have produced this ill-drafted and obscure passage with no justification for it. They do not know of a single case which will be affected by it, yet they come forward with a proposal which is plain and blatant retrospection of a kind the House has always opposed, save on proven grounds of real public interest.
This is bankruptcy of Government. It is an appalling attitude for a Government to take and to seek to do it under the cover of night in the hope that it will not be reported is an indication of bankruptcy not only of economic policy but of the morals of the Government.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have one serious reservation about the Amendment. If it is passed it may save the First Secretary from embarrassment. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was sacked by the Prime Minister for coming to the House and offering similar retrospective powers to the House. If the Amendment were carried it might save the First Secretary from suffering

a similar fate at the same hands. That is the only disadvantage which I see in the Amendment, which has been so excellently advocated.
The Bill has been sold to one section of the community as giving, broadly speaking, equal justice by applying equally to prices and to incomes. Does it do so? How can the retrospective part of it be applied to prices which have already been paid? Unless every shopkeeper notes the name and address of every person who makes a purchase in his shop, and also notes the price increase paid, how is it possible to apply the Bill with the same vigour, retrospectively, to sales as that with which it has been applied to people who have received pay increases and whose names, by definition, are known? I offer that as an example of the way in which a false prospectus is attached to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary muddled the words "prices" and "incomes" as a sort of formula of respectability, but he has given no evidence that the prices side of it can be applied effectively with retrospection. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is very fair. If the Minister asks for retrospective powers, particularly powers which affect the criminal as well as the civil law, surely he has an obligation to quantify to the House the necessity for these provisions, and no such quantification has even been attempted.
How much better it would be if the Parliamentary Secretary or the First Secretary had the grace to say that he knew of no reason for believing these powers to be necessary and that therefore he would accept this entirely reasonable Amendment? Would it not be better for them to say that they know of no reason for needing these powers, which possibly by oversight or possibly through some more sinister reasons they have written into the Bill? We are entitled to a much more convincing reason from the Government for accepting what many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel to be a fundamental breach of principle, and one which attracted such severe censure not so long ago on the right hon. Gentleman who endeavoured to put it over in the House that he was dismissed from his office.

Mr. John Peyton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is a very powerful debater and the House has just listened to a very powerful speech by him. But I am sure that, on reflection, he, would agree that he was perhaps slightly unfair to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is doing his best with an impossible case. The attack which my right hon. Friend delivered with such eloquence would really have been aimed at other targets. The Parliamentary Secretary has been cast by the Government in the rôle of Sisyphus, alone, in absolute solitude, in almost eternal disappointment, pushing the stone of the prices and incomes policy up the hill, usually deserted by his right hon. Friends. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am detracting from the skill and accuracy of his speech when I make this rather lame attempt to defend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will recall that in my observations I said that it was wrong for the Parliamentary Secretary to be entrusted with an Amendment of this importance. I think that it is the First Secretary's duty to address the House on the subject, and I still nourish the hope that my hon. Friend's eloquence will get the First Secretary to his feet to take the responsibility which rightly lies on him.

Mr. Peyton: That is the very point on which I differ from my right hon. Friend and on which I believe that he is unfair. It is the Parliamentary Secretary's skill and practice which has won him his place at the Dispatch Box tonight, and the two right hon. Gentlemen sitting beside him—and even the presence of the President of the Board of Trade—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will not be out of order if he comes to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I accept that the mention of the President of the Board of Trade was a grotesque and unforgivable irrelevancy on my part.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was jaywalking.

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend says that it was jay-walking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said lightly but now seriously that the hon. Member must discuss the Amendment.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Peyton: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made the best of a bad job, and I am sorry that neither of his right hon. Friends was here to give him moral support, which is the only support they could give him. We were told that this was not retrospection in the normal sense of the word in that it does not refer to the powers but to the dates. Then the hon. Gentleman confessed that all that was being done by these innocent words was to organise a transition between now and 12th August, that mystical date which for some reason has got written into the prices and incomes policy. I want to laugh about it, but I should hate to introduce any note of flippancy into this grave matter.
It is odd that we should not be given any estimate by the Government as to how many cases are affected by these words. They are taking an unusual step and it is their duty to justify it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech was the best that could be made by any Minister, let alone a junior Minister, in such circumstances. I have conceived a healthy respect for his ability. He has justified again and again the totally unjustifiable and it would be wrong not to give him credit for it.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned to show that there is really no distinction between the results which attend the voluntary and the compulsory. We have got into an extraordinary argument about semantics. Apparently, under the Socialist Government, the words "voluntary" and "compulsory" are coming to mean much the same thing. It is not only confusing but a dangerous confusion and we ask the Government to think again.
Now that the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are here, I hope that one of them will feel stirred to claim his place in history by accepting that these intolerable words should be deleted from an intolerable Bill, which would thereby become slightly better. It would be a worthy achievement on his part.

Mr. Webster: I share my hon. Friend's slight doubt about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames


(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I was disturbed when he mentioned a difference of value between historians and lawyers.

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Gentleman speak up? I want to hear whether he is in order.

Mr. Webster: I shall endeavour to speak up, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that if there is any trouble with the transmission arrangements, it can be put right.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will not make pejorative remarks about historians who are constitutional people and who have taken a great deal of care about the retrospective situation here. I support his request to the Parliamentary Secretary for figures. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been very courteous to the House, has not sent for those figures. How many people are expected to be affected between now and 12th August? How many trade unions are expected to be affected? I am glad to see that a Parliamentary Private Secretary has been sent to the Box.

Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious to preserve what I hope has been my courtesy to the House and it will be even better if I deal with that matter before the message returns. The reason why I have not been able to give a quantitative answer to the question put to me is that no quantitative answer is possible. The hon. Gentleman understands very well that for an Order to be made in the circumstances laid down by the Clause a number of things have to happen. One is that reports must have been requested from and made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The second thing is, after a period of voluntary restraint, for the recommendations of the Board then to be flouted and an increase given over its head. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while it is possible to say how many references are in the hands of the Board at any one time, it is impossible to say what the reaction of the parties will be when the reports are finally made to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary will have an opportunity to speak later; interventions must be brief.

Mr. Webster: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he does not know how many citizens who do not now believe that they are breaking the law might be found to be breaking the law later. It is these people whom the House must protect. What percentage of the gross national product will be affected? By what percentage will the cost of living be increased in this mammoth exercise between now and grouse shooting day? These are matters about which the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to give a good deal of clarification. There is no justification at all for these extraordinary words in five different lines of the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) spoke with great learning. He seems to be the greatest living expert in the House on the extrusion of aluminium.

Mr. Biffen: indicated dissent.

Mr. Webster: My hon. Friend shakes his head. He is an expert on the extrusion of aluminium, on various processes on aluminium, on the inert gas fabrication of aluminium by various processes, and then he got on to the obiter dicta of Mr. Jones, to bricks, and then again to the conflict between voluntary and compulsory.
In this Amendment we are dealing not only with retrospection, but with the difference between voluntary and compulsory and throughout the whole of the Bill and the activities of the D.E.A., the distinction between voluntary and compulsory seems to be blurred. This is another constitutional matter which the House would do well to think about.
We are told that if restraint is not voluntary, it will be compulsory. This is sheer blackmail of the most dangerous order, and if the House lets this go through without another thought from the First Secretary, we shall have created a very dangerous precedent. This is another of the now frequent examples of law-abiding citizens finding themselves brought into conflict with the law for reasons which they do not understand, about matters which bewilder them and which concern their livelihoods, and these are dangerous matters which the House should consider before deciding whether to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Higgins: The answers which we have had from the Government Front Bench during what has been a very distinguished debate, especially as regards the contributions of my hon. Friends, are not in the least adequate. The Parliamentary Secretary has certainly given the impression of trying to be helpful, and I believe that he has genuinely tried to be so. He assures me on "claw-back" that it is not the Government's intention under this Clause to do more than equalise the period of other people whom he considers, volunteered for the Government's prices and incomes policy.
He must be clear that this assurance will mean that the Government will be proposing to make orders which we regard as having a discriminatory element of compulsion and which we have been consistently against throughout these debates. It also involves a considerable element of retrospection. When we came to the debate last night we had some metaphysical distinction from the First Secretary about whether something was voluntary or fully voluntary. We now seem to be in a position where some things are fully voluntary, and others are merely retrospective.
The position put forward very clearly indeed from this side of the House is that we regard the whole of this retrospection, and its use as a normal tool of government—as against an exceptional event—as something to which we should be totally and utterly opposed. The second point is that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there needs to be a reasonable transition period between the operation of Part IV and the operation of Part II. It is still a reasonable transition between the two periods which we regard as singularly unfortunate. In both periods there is still a very considerable element of compulsion. The fact that the transition from one period to another is regarded as reasonable by the hon. Gentleman does not make us feel, that this is a reason for withdrawing the Amendment.
We come to who is likely to be affected by the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted. The hon. Gentleman has again given the appearance of trying to be helpful, and said that it would depend on how many references have been made. He does not attempt to specify which references have been made and which are likely to fall within this Clause. This is

an unfortunate lapse, and I hope that the First Secretary will intervene briefly to give us this interesting information. If not we are forced into the position, pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) of feeling that the Government have not the remotest idea of who is affected by the Clause.
If this is so, a very important consequence follows. Effectively, what the Government are doing is to take retrospective powers which will enable them to impose all the restrictions which they had under Part IV in the case of actions that took place when Part IV prevailed. In other words, what they are really doing under this Clause, is to perpetuate Part IV of the principal Act. They can impose the full weight of their policy as it was under Part IV, retrospectively on price or wage increases which took place in the period covered by Part IV. This is really the point which emerged from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, even to my surprise, and I have become a little cynical about the Government's policy.
The Government are perpetuating Part IV, which this House was assured last year would not be perpetuated beyond the mystical date of 12th August. On these grounds I very much hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote with enthusiasm for this Amendment. I hope that before we do so we may have some reply from the First Secretary about the actual references.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs should clarify the position. It appears that the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out would perpetuate Part IV, about which specific pledges were given a year ago that there would be a definite term limit to this Section.
As I have listened to the debate I have come to the conclusion that unless these words are omitted the impression will be given—which I think will be accurate—that at a time when the Government are saying that they are moving to a voluntary phase of prices and incomes policy in fact we see a strengthening and continuation of the powers ruling under the


1966 Act. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanations. It seemed clear that up to 12th August the position must be covered adequately by the 1966 Act and that there can be no reason to think that for this period of 20 or 21 days the Act is inadequate. By putting in what appears to be a retrospective Clause relating to the period of the 1966 Act, the Government are in effect extending the Act itself.
I do not regard the Bill as at present before the House as a tapering-off measure. The addition of these words giving retrospective power to the Government is not a tidying up or transitional phase to a voluntary policy, but a direct extension of certain powers in the 1966 Act to which strongest exception was taken by us a year ago. I think it fair to say that many hon. Members opposite would have pressed their opposition much more strongly if they had not felt able to accept assurances given by the Government that these aspects would lapse on the specific date to which the powers referred in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it is impossible for him to judge how many breaches may occur because he does not know what the course of price and wage adjustments may be, but by looking at the Act he must know how many more reports are likely to come before 12th August. It would appear from what he said and the fact that he feels unable to give an indication, that he is taking powers to refer not only price increases and wage increases which may follow a report published between now and 12th August, but to continue powers to take action in respect of reports which may be published at a very much advanced stage subsequent to that date. Many of these reports take a very long time.
Two questions are involved. One is the question of retrospective legislation, to which many hon. Members have taken exception. There is also the clear extension of the powers of the 1966 Act, not just the ability to take action which should have been taken in the last two or three days which it was not possible to take. Unless this Amendment is accepted, these words amount to a breach of the

undertakings of a year ago on the powers of the Act under the guise of being a retrospective power as if this were a transitional and minor matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am by no means certain whether the First Secretary wants to make progress or not. We are quite prepared to fall in with him either way. A request has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for a reply on a matter which we regard as of very great importance indeed. By this Amendment we seek to leave out of the Bill four lines which offend, as we see it, the principle that there should be no retrospective legislation except in the case of proven public or national need. I would have thought the case had been most formidably made by people of great experience—for example, in the law—by two of my right hon. and learned Friends, and by many other people on this side of the House, and yet we have had only a very cursory answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, an answer which we found entirely unsatisfactory.
I understand, of course, his difficulty in this matter, but I cannot understand why he says he has either little or no knowledge of how many wage claims there may be, how many breaches there may be, between now, when we are getting on to halfway through July, and the classic date of 12th August, which is looming ahead. I simply do not understand it, because I know very well from my experience of his Ministry—and I imagine it is the same still—that every fortnight there is a schedule prepared of all the wage claims at whatever levels they may be, right from their inception, which may be months before the date of a settlement.
The inception, as we know, is very frequently at the Easter or Whitsun conference of the union concerned, and, as many people on both sides of the House will be aware—I do not think I am giving away anything which I ought not to —it is made available to Whitehall, to the Ministries which are concerned. I simply do not understand how the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of all Ministries can say he has no knowledge of what may happen in this very critical field between now, 11th July, and one month away, 11th August, before the axe comes down.
I would ask the First Secretary whether he would like to reply—or, indeed, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if he wishes, by leave of the House, for I have no doubt leave would be given him to dc so. I would say seriously to them that we have been discussing this Amendment longer than I thought we would, because we found the answer of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary absolutely trivial in response to some extremely cogent and well argued speeches by my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope that the Treasury Bench will treat the representations which we make with rather more seriousness as this night wears on, otherwise we shall not make very much progress.
I make this quite clear to the Government. If they want to make progress, well then, they must listen to and answer the serious points which we put forward. I do very much hope that either the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, by leave of the House, or the First Secretary, who does not need leave to speak because he has not spoken yet on this Motion, will answer some of the points which have been made from this side of the House, because we do regard these four lines with very grave suspicion indeed. We see no reason why the Government should wish to retain them in the Bill. As we have made clear, we wish to remove them, if we possibly can.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I rise in direct response to the request of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I did not do so earlier because one of his hon. Friends rose and I did not wish to interfere with anything that he might wish to say.
I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, since his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) emphasised that, in his view, the Parliamentary Secretary made as good a reply as the facts warranted. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman complains of? Does he complain that he does not like the Clause, which is one thing, or does he complain that my hon. Friend did not treat the House seriously in his reply? Quite clearly, the hon. Member for Yeovil does not make that complaint—

Mr. Peyton: I congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary upon his gallant attempt to defend the totally indefensible, and, of course, I reflected upon the fact that the First Secretary had the discretion to absent himself from the unpleasant task of explaining this intolerable Bill. It was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman now seems to be contradicting himself. I gathered that he thought that, in view of the nature of the Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary made a good reply.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman does not think so. It is a matter of opinion. But I do not accept his strictures on my hon. Friend's reply.
On this use of the word "retrospective", it is true that orders can be made under this Clause to have effect after 12th August which suspend price or pay increases which were implemented before that date. This is an entirely valid reason for saying that it is not retrospective in the sense in which the term is commonly used, because those price or pay increases would have been made in contravention of recommendations by the Board which were available before that date.
There is no question of people acting in complete ignorance of what was expected of them, and then being told afterwards that they were expected to do something different. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) must accept that what we have here is not the same as saying suddenly that something which a person had no reason to suppose would be called in question is now to be called in question—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely there is still the basic objection that something which is lawful at the time that it is done is made unlawful by legislation passed subsequently.

Mr. Stewart: Now the right hon. Gentleman is repeating what he said earlier. He is not attempting to contravert the point which I have made, that


the price or pay increases under discussion would have been made at a time when there were clear recommendations making it clear to those who made the increases what the position was.
Suppose that a price or pay increase is made on 20th August. It seems to me that the case for being able to act upon it, if it is in conflict with the report, is basically the same whether that report was made on 1st, 12th or 13th August. Similarly, if a report is made on 1st August, it seems to me that one ought to be in a position, in justice and common sense, to take the same action whether the increase in price or pay in contravention of the report is made on 10th or 16th August. I give those dates as particular examples.
The effect of the Clause is to produce that result. The effect of the Amendment would be to upset it and produce a far more anomalous situation than the one which prevails in the Bill.
1.15 a.m.
On the question of the quantity, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend we cannot give an absolute quantitative answer. There are only three references to the Board so far which have been made at a time which will enable the powers in this Clause to be exercised after the enactment of the Bill, on the assumption that the Board takes three

months to reply. There could, of course, be other references to the Board before the 12th August. Further, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, this question of the number of references cannot, by itself, fully describe what the quantitative scope of the Clause might be. It will depend on the reactions of the parties to the reports.

I have dealt with the two main points which were raised, the question of what we mean by retrospection, and the question of the quantitative operation of the Bill. If the Amendment were made, we would get a result which was more anomalous, more inconsistent, and gave less coverage than any reasonable person might expect, than if we leave the Clause as it is. It is for this reason that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not a fact that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument on this depends on the word at the end of line 35 being "and", whereas in fact the word is "or"?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot accept that point.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 121.

Division No. 444.]
AYES
[1.18 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert


Archer, Peter
Dobson, Ray
Heafey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Donnelly, Desmond
Henig, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Eadie, Alex
Hilton, W. S.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, John
Horner, John


Bence, Cyril
Ensor, David
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howie, W.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Huckfield, L.


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Hunter, Adam


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boston, Terence
Galpern, Sir Myer
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boyden, James
Gardner, Tony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hul1, W.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir EIwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
Kelley, Richard


Chapman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Coe, Denis
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.



Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
Ledger, Ron


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Harper, Joseph
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Haseldine, Norman
Lee, John (Reading)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hattersley, Roy
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)




Luard, Evan
Palmer, Arthur
Small, William


Lynn, Alexander W. (York)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Snow, Julian


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurence
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Macdonald, A. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, Dick


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Maclennan, Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thornton, Ernest


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar,)
Tinn, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mendelson, J. J.
Rees, Merlyn
Walden, Brian (AH Saints)


Mikardo, Ian
Reynolds, G. W.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Richard, Ivor
Whitaker, Ben


Moonman, Eric
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Whittock, William


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Neal, Harold
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phitip(Derby,S.)
Ryan, John
Winnick, David


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Yates, Victor


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Peter (Stepney)



Oram, Albert E.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Harold Walker and


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Neave, Airey


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony
Pardoe, John


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian


Bessell, Peter
Grieve, Percy
pike, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heard, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Bunk, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Campbell, Cordon
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northante, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Cordls, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Temple, John M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crouch, David
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Macfeod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wan, Patrick


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Webster, David


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maddan, Martin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Winstanley, Dr. M, P.


Elliott,R.w.(N'c'tleupon-Tyne,N.)
Maude, Angus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Emery, Peter
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Woodnutt, Mark


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.



Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Mltchell, David (Basingstoke)



Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Gibson-watt, David
More, Jasper
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 445.]
AYES
[1.28 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Joel
Bishop, E. S.


Archer, Peter
Bence, Cyril
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boston, Terence


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James

The House divided: Ayes 141, part Noes 121.

Bray, Or. Jeremy
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Hilton, W. S.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hootey, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Chapman, Donald
Huckfield, L.
Price, William (Rugby)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir E1wyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Aleo (Rhondda, West)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Donnelly, Desmond
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Small, William


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Snow, Julian


Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, Dick


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton, Ernest


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tuck, Raphael


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. c (S'th'pton, Teat)
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (AH Saints)


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Coneett)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitaker, Ben


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Neal, Harold
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.
Yates, Victor


Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Mr. Harold Walker and


Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K.
Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bessell, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Biffen, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper


Body, Richard
Cresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pardoe, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Cordle, John
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Arthur (Northants, SO
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goidtmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharpies, Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliott, R.w.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)







Temple, John M.
Webster, David
Woreley, Marcus


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Vickers, Dame Joan
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Richard (colne Valley)
winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Wait, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark

Clause 4.—(MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICA TION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966.)

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 8, at the end to insert:
(5) Subsection (4) of section 16 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966 shall cease to have effect.
Section 16 of the 1966 Act contains punitive provisions and states, among other things:
If any trade union or other person takes, or threatens to take, any action, and in particular any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike…he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine which, if the offender is not a body corporate, shall not exceed five hundred pounds."

The Amendment, if accepted, would remove those punitive provisions from the parent Act.
My hon. Friends and I propose this course because we were led to believe that this process of dismantling the compulsory powers applying to wages—the dismantling process announced by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government—would take place. We were promised that, in Committee, the 1966 Act —and particularly Section 16—would be amended. Unfortunately we were not allowed to take part in the discussions in Committee. Nor have we seen any proposed change in the Measure to suggest that the promises made to the T.U.C. and other trade unionists—who had asked for these punitive provisions to be amended—are being kept. This is the first opportunity we have had to state our case and to explain why Section 16(4) should be removed.
These provisions are not only bad economics but are morally wrong and politically disastrous; and tonight I shall demonstrate why they should be removed. They have lost support for th.3 Labour movement—more so than any other part of the Measure—and while

the Government have said time and again that they will not use these powers, we want them removed once and for all.
These measures have been included for two reasons. The first, a simple one, has often been discussed here—that it used to be erroneously believed that clouting the trade unions was a vote winner. Five or six Members of the Cabinet, I understand, thought this, but it has been disproved, particularly by the local election results, and my party no longer believes that it has anything to commend it electorally. The party opposite have long advocated being tough with the unions, but I hope that they will do so no longer, and that the Leader of the Opposition, after his speech last week, will reflect that it is not an electoral winner; although, if they did continue in this vein, it would ensure our success.
There are other political lessons to be learned. One must be critical of the Government's case for these measures. The Cabinet do not have the "feel" of the grass roots of industry and opinion in the unions. Hon. Members opposite lack this totally and are largely irrelevant: I am speaking to my own comrades and my friends in the Government. They do not understand that the one issue which the lads in industry constantly fight for and discuss is the wages question. The wages of sin may be death, but the wages of the British worker are a very near second. These are the kind of jokes which dominate life in industry.
The Government's cold-handedness has got them into trouble with the unions, who find the situation produced by this legislation difficult to comprehend, because of the way the unions were born and injected into industry. People in industry try to measure the qualities of our mixed economy and recognise that people are honoured because they are successful profit-makers. The people in another place, the people with knighthoods and the people in the Birthday Honours List, are those who have been successful in making tremendous profits.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I must remind the hon. Member that we are not on Second Reading but Report stage and he should confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you for that observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to set the scene and point out why these measures are included in the Bill and to show why there is misunderstanding throughout the country. It is the basis of our case that workers in industry see success measured in terms of profitability. On the other hand, with great sadness in their hearts, the leaders of the working-class movement have supported policies which restrain wages. The one thing they see which is valued is profit and they compare this with the restraint on wages. That is why the bitterness exists, particularly when there is a Clause of this kind directed against trade unions. The Clause spells out in detail that this part of the legislation is concerned with trade unions and no other section of the community.
Experience over the past few months has proved that this is anti-trade union legislation, not because the Government are anti-trade union, but because wage negotiations are carried on collectively and organised by the trade unions. Of necessity this part of the Bill must be anti-trade union. My comrades in industry recognise this. Whatever methods are used to maintain the economy, they see the difference between stimulants given to industry and deterrents on wages. They see this written into the legislation. They know that to achieve economic success there must be stimulants given to the profit motive which is the motive force in industry, and they see deterrents to deter people from having much more than the Government believe to be the workers' share.
These are the values which exist in industry today and the reasons for the bitterness which is brought about when legislation of this kind is passed, particularly by a Labour Government. That is why we are concerned in the wage struggle to understand the grass-roots and the thinking in industry. It is noticeable that there is only one member of the Cabinet with any background in industry. That is the Minister of Labour. There is no one else, so far as I know, who

has a background of this sort and a feel of industry. I know that there is the Minister of Power, but he was a professional trade unionist and did not work with the tools. Something is missing and there is a failure to understand our case. That is why we attach such importance to our case.
There is a second and probably more complex reason why the Clause was included. Since 1964 the Government have established as a first priority the maintenance of the £. Having said that all these actions were related to maintaining the value of the £, we can see a little more clearly why we have these punitive measures. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) were invited to join the Cabinet, there would be an immediate run on the £. If they were pursuing the kind of policy which we have heard from them, there would be an immediate run on the £. It is fair to say that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be an interesting speculation, but it is hardly relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Atkinson: I use that as an illustration. The purpose of the inclusion of this Clause was to satisfy financial interests which had a great interest in maintaining the value of the £.
Much has been written about what happened from the summer of 1965, when the present Foreign Secretary, then First Secretary of State, was negotiating with the T.U.C. and when the Government were also negotiating for additional support from American and European sources. Various members of the Government and one or two senior civil servants were commuting to the United States in an attempt to get some extra support for the £. The major discussion taking place was whether we should have an incomes policy with teeth in it. The Americans were then demanding that there must be teeth in the incomes policy. All this is common knowledge.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) was then telling the trade union leaders that he must have their agreement to the kind of incomes policy which we now have in order to get support from the Americans. Sufficient time has elapsed for these facts to be put on


record. We saw the birth of this policy, which every member of the Government was reluctant to accept. I am convinced that both the Prime Minister and the present Foreign Secretary fought tenaciously against the inclusion of measure5 of this kind in the Bill but their view was outweighed by the necessity to maintain the value of the £.
People in industry recognise this and understand why the Government decided to take the measures which they announced. Hon. Members who have signed the Amendment do not believe that we should ever have been in the position of having to bargain with the Americans in that way and of having to include such punitive measures. People in the factories understand the problems of imports and the balance of payments and the necessity for the Government to have a broadly based policy. They understand the meaning of deflation and of price regulation. They can see that a deflationary policy and the cutting back of imports mean a reduction of imports.
But in all this they resent the fact that a Labour Government have been forced to underwrite their policy by using measures of this kind, by threatening our people with tremendous fines and prosecutions. The resentment is there and that is why this policy will be defeated at the T.U.C. and at the annual conference of the Labour Party. People began to lose faith with the Government because the Government started to lose faith with our workers. One certainty is that one cannot seek voluntary co-operation with the Government by our people in terms of economic growth by threatening them with massive prosecutions. The Government say, of course, that they will never use this power, and we accept that. But the threat is always there, and we want it out of the Bill.
The way ahead is clear. It is the responsibility of the Government to announce to the country that they have confidence in the workers and the T.U.C. and its voluntary policy, believing that it will have some effect in bringing about economic recovery. This is an emotive subject but, in view of the time, I now ask the support of the House for this Amendment, which would take from the prices and incomes policy these terrible

punitive measures against our trade unions.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) wishes to remove from the 1966 Act the infringement on the right to strike —that is to say, the gross, punitive measures, as he calls them, imposed on trade unionists and others who strike in contravention of the Government's policy. He wishes to remove those measures, and so I do and all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The interesting thing about this debate is that if he is really serious in his intention he could achieve his objective, for it is clear from the figures in the last Division that if he and his hon. Friends —ten or a dozen of them—are serious about this matter, they can achieve their objective. I hope that before we hear any more heart-throb speeches from that group on this matter, they will realise that it is deeds and not words which count in this. Perhaps they will take courage from what Mr. Frank Cousins did last year when the Prices and Incomes Act was going through. He sought to remove these powers from it and he had the courage of his convictions, for he voted. He did not merely abstain. That is a good tradition and one they might observe.
The First Secretary of State has suggested throughout these debates that he is moving from a period of terror, of iron grip, into a wider, ampler and better ether. This has been the burden of his speeches, the theme-song throughout, that we are gradually moving, perhaps rapidly moving, from the prison to the full flight of freedom, that we are in a transitional stage. One would have thought that the removal of the vitally important provision was a symbol of that progression. If the right hon. Gentleman believes in that progression, why does he not remove that symbol as an earnest of his intentions? It does not do him much good and we know from experience that he does not intend to use it.
2.0 a.m.
We have the example of the Long-bridge car delivery men who had an Order made against them. The car delivery men


came to an agreement with their employer a long time ago and the Government made an Order forbidding the implementation of that agreement to increase their wages. Presumably, the Government examined that agreement and decided that it did not come within the exceptions to the freeze or the period of severe restraint and was not a productivity agreement which could be allowed—or, otherwise, they would not have made an Order.
The Government having made an Order and the employers having observed it, the trade unions or other persons concerned clearly took action in the hope of persuading others—
with a view to compel, induce or influence
their employers to implement the award. Nobody disputes that. What did the Government do? Nothing. All they did was to say that they wanted evidence about the original agreement, and they have been asking for that evidence for weeks and months.
They must have known the facts of that agreement before they made the Order. Otherwise, it was a very tyrannical thing to do. They must have known months ago whether the agreement was a genuine productivity agreement, but they have delayed on the excuse that a genuine productivity agreement, but they wanted more evidence about whether it was, and these sanctions, these punitive measures which the hon. Member for Tottenham so rightly dislikes are a paper tiger, and if there is one thing worse than a proper tiger it is a paper tiger.
Great damage has been done to the law merely for the purposes of propaganda. This provision is mere propaganda. It is a sort of proclamation, an in terrorem, a façade with nothing behind it, because it is clear from their actions that the Government do not intend to use it. Why, then, do they leave it in the Bill? Why do they soil their immortal souls for a paper tiger? Why for such a tiny mess of potage do they go on putting in this retrospective provision, this punitive provision, bringing the law into great disrepute for very little advantage?
One could understand it if they were villians on a great scale, disfiguring the Statute Book with this sort of provision

for an object worth having, but in fact these objectives are tiny, they are phantoms and one cannot understand why the Government persist in this line of argument. It disfigures our Statute Book. It is a gross breach of a basic human right, the right to strike, and it is for very little purpose.
I hope that, since it is such a tremendous breach of this basic human right, which is protected by various conventions, international and otherwise, and enshrined in our law since the days of Disraeli, who introduced it in the great Administration of 1870, that it will not now be disfigured in this way. [Interruption.] I hope that those who seek to interrupt me will at least have the courage of their convictions and join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) began and ended his speech by saying that if those of us on this side of the House who had backed this Amendment were seriously sincere in our intentions we could prove it by voting for the Amendment at the end of the proceedings. That was a perfectly proper point and I will try to answer it at the end of my remarks.
As a first comment upon his speech, I was deeply touched by his suggestion that the Tory Party had always fought in the cause of trade unionism. I almost expected him to say at any moment that the original martyrs in the cause were all members of the Todpuddle Conservative and Unionism Association. He did not go as far as that, but he did suggest that he was deeply moved, on trade union grounds, and that he shared our views in that respect.
I agree with him in his appeal to the Minister and the Government. In his earlier replies to some of the Amendments the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that each of the Amendments would be considered by the Government on their merits, that they were eager to accommodate the proposals if they could. I would suggest that this is the Amendment which they could select for acceptance. If they do so it would be a graceful act, and one for which they would get quite considerable credit.
In views of the events of the last few days, it would be a great asset for


the Government if they were to accept the Amendment, because the suggestion has been made that there could possibly be permanent legislation along the lines of this Bill and that next August there might be another similar Bill introduced. The Government are eager to disabuse us of that impression, and nothing could prove it better than for them to make a concession of this character. They would show the country that, so far from wishing to continue and strengthen such legislation, they were proving by deeds their eagerness to remove the most offensive parts of this Bill from the Statute Book.
I hope that they will seriously answer our proposal and consider acceptance of the Amendment, both in our interest, in the country's interest, and in their own interest. It has been part of the Government's claim, and they have a case for it, that this Measure is weaker in many respects than last year's Bill. It represents a modification, or a retreat, from the previous Measure they say. No one could deny that. As the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, why not confirm the retreat by removing the punitive Clauses? It would be a very sensible course for the Government to take on every ground.
The Government may argue that in the debate of a year ago it was claimed that it was possible, under that Act, for trade unionists to be sent to prison. This has net happened, they will say, and will ask why should we be so afraid of the continuance of this Clause? They might say that the fears expressed by some of us in that debate have not been proved correct, and should not lead to a revival of fears on this occasion. But because the Act has not been operated or been invoked, or this part has not been resorted to against trade unionists in the last 12 months, does not mean that it might not be in future.
I remember discussions we had a year ago when Part IV was recommended partly on the ground that it was never likely to be introduced. That was the major argument presented to us; that was the long-stop. The whole suggestion in July last year was that Part IV was extremely unlikely ever to be operated. Precisely because it was not going to be operated, the Government thought the House should vote for it. Yet, against

all their prophecies and all the likelihood they seemed to suggest, Part IV was brought into operation. It is therefore not beyond the bounds of possibility that even these long-stop powers of penal action against trade unionists could be invoked.
I shall describe one of the reasons why that is conceivable. I do not wish to create scares. Many of us want to see this legislation removed from the Statute Book. We think it offensive that such Measures should be on the Statute Book and we would like them removed in any case. There are possibilities in which this power could be used. One of the most powerful arguments which the Government employ whenever we have a major debate on prices and incomes which I heard the Minister in charge of the Bill using in the debate yesterday, is that if we do not have this Bill with all its sanctions and paraphernalia we are in danger of a free-for-all which would involve injustice and a situation in which some selfish trade unions might be able to grab advantages over the others.
This is the primary case on which the Government present their plea for the Bill and command their major support. This case was put powerfully a year ago by the present Foreign Secretary and it is put equally powerfully by the Minister in charge of the Bill at present. But the Government never seem to understand that one of the implications of that case is that trade union officers and leaders who might be expected to put in claims for higher paid workers are required not to do so for a considerable time during the operation of the Bill, and maybe for a considerable time ahead. The whole case is that the minority who could get the advantage in this free-for-all must not do so.
If that is applied in practice to trade union officers and leaders in some areas where they could command higher wages they are required to do the exact opposite of what a trade union leader does. He has to spend his time telling his members the reasons why he should not put in wage claims. That is bound to happen and that is what has happened to some extent. It is the Government's grievance against Mr. Clive Jenkins to some extent that, they say, he is going ahead and fighting for the members of his union, which is almost a criminal offence. If it


is not a criminal offence, it is a very offensive attitude for him to take.
The Government may for a short time be able to sustain a situation where leaders and officers of trade unions are invoked by Government or patriotic appeals—call them what we will—to do something which is absolutely opposed to and in defiance of their nature as trade union officers, but the Government cannot do that for very long because people will not do it. What is to happen in those unions? What will happen in those unions which can claim higher wages? They will not stand for it. Because the officers of these unions must carry out the obligations to their own unions, and one of the obligations is to work for higher wages for their members.
2.15 a.m.
If the Government go on saying to them "You must not do that", what will occur? Either the leaders of those unions will be forced into an open clash with the Government, or they will lose members. Or they will find people will say, "It is not worth being a member of a trade union." They may have studied the debates which we have had in the House of Commons on these Orders, and they may say, "There is a positive disadvantage in being a member of a trade union, because one is more likely to be penalised by Orders issued by the Government than if one is outside a trade union". I do not think that anybody who has listened to the debates we have had on these Orders can deny that that is a possible situation.
So we have the situation that for the period of this Bill, for the next 12 months, the anguish which trade union officers have had to endure will be intensified. We are going to have a relaxation of the wages pause, we are going to have a 6 per cent. increase of wages, according to the Government's calculation, by the end of the year, and we are saying to certain trade unions that if they persist in pressing their demands outside the procedure laid down by the Bill they may get into trouble.
I admit that there are many operations to go through before we reach this result, but eventually we shall reach the situation that trade union officers engaged in their normal business of trying to campaign

and work for wage increases to which their members are entitled will come up against this Clause. If it is not possible for them to come up against it, the Clause is superfluous, but if it is possible for them to come up against it, it is more likely that that will happen in the next 12 months than it was likely to have happened in the last 12 months, precisely because we are to have a relaxation of the wages pause in certain spheres, and that will intensify the pressure on different trade unions to press forward with their wages demands, and they may be pressed in circumstances which are against the provisions laid down by the Government.
The Government may ask me, "What is your alternative?" If I were to try to answer that in this debate I should be out of order. Many of us, on other occasions, have sought to explain what are our alternative economic measures for dealing with the Government's very real dilemma. What we are saying about this Clause is that we do not accept that this is a tolerable alternative. We do not accept a provision which would impose an economic policy of this nature, with such sanctions as these. We do not accept this as being a tolerable alternative to the economic difficulties.
It is not merely that we think that this is opposed to Labour principles and Socialist principles, but, as I have tried to explain, because it will, in my belief, become increasingly unworkable, because the provisions of this Bill are fundamentally opposed to what is the natural instinct of trade unions and those who are conducting trade union business. For that reason, too, I think the Government, in their own interests, would be very wise to withdraw this subsection. It would be very satisfactory for the Government to know that there would be no possibility of any action having to be taken against any trade union leader in the next 12 months. If we got to the situation in which the Government had to take action against a trade union leader or officer we should be in a parlous state indeed.
It would be very much better that the Government should not have the temptation. If they were to remove it, they would get the credit for their generosity; they would get credit for having listened to the debate; they would get credit from us for having improved the Bill. And


as far as I can see, they would not suffer any disadvantage whatever, particularly as the Government have said that it is unlikely that there will be a resort to this kind of measure.
They can argue, of course—and this is the old long-stop argument in a different guise—that if they remove the deterrent, they do not know what the terrible trade unionists will get up to. But that cannot he argued successfully at the same time as they appeal for co-operation from the trade union movement. I do not think that the trade union movement itself would desire that such reserve powers should be kept for use against a so-called selfish minority among its numbers, but would prefer the powers to be wiped away altogether.
I come now to the point which has been made about the vote. It has been said that the vote is very narrow, and if those of us who have abstained on previous Amendments were to vote against the Government on this occasion, it might be that the Government would be defeated. I am not saying that there are not occasions when that would be the proper course, but I do not think that it would be on this occasion, and no one has the right to suggest that we are insincere in moving this Amendment if we do not follow that course.
I regard votes in this House as a serious matter. The way that an hon. Member votes is a test of him in the last resort. I understand that, and I do not wish to apologise for any vote in that sense. What those of us who move this Amendment wish to do is to change the policy of the Government. We do not want to change the Government. We do not want to remove a Labour Government. We do not want to put in the other lot. We want to change the policy of the Government and, with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, or even to his more distinguished or less distinguished leaders on the Front Bench, we may know better how to influence our Front Bench than they do. It may be that the very worst way to try and influence them to do anything would be to get into too guilty an association with hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we were to do so, we might destroy such influence as we have, and therefore—[Interruplion.] I have just been told that if I Went into the Government, it would cause

a run on the £. I have often wondered why it was that I was left out. Now I know the reason.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may jeer at us and say that we have no influence, if they wish. Of course, we should like to have more influence than we have, but what we have the right to do, along with every other hon. Member, is to see how best, by associating with those of us who have similar views, we can exert our influence on the Government of the day. As hon. Members on all sides know, that is not a matter to be decided solely on the way in which people vote in one Division. It is a matter to be decided on how they vote over a large number of occasions and how they exercise such influence as they possess in different quarters.
I do not think that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have the right to accuse my hon. Friends and myself that we have been lacking in valour, to adopt the word which was used about the Leader of the House, in the way in which we vote in the House. We have a perfectly creditable record on these matters.
The very fact that this appeal has been made and that some of us will not be taunted into indiscretion or folly by hon. Gentlemen opposite should underline to the Government how slender is the ice on which they are skating with this Bill. It is true that their majority is getting smaller and smaller. I do not think that they have very strong backing from this side of the House either for the Measure as a whole or for this Clause.
I think that in the trade union movement they have even less backing for this Measure as a whole than for the Clause. I hope that the Government will draw some lessons from the debates of the last two nights and will recognise that they have not been able to prove the case for their economic policy as a whole.
Many of us bitterly opposed, and fiercely denounced, the measures which the Government introduced on 20th July last year, of which this is one of the children, to use the most polite phrase that will be used about it. Many of us prophesied what would be the result of those policies, and anyone who looks to see what has happened can see that our prophesies, rather than the Government's,


have tended to be confirmed over the last twelve months.
It may be too much to ask the Government to reconsider the whole Bill, but if, by deeds, they wish to assure the country that they wish to get this Bill, and this Clause, off the Statute Book as quickly as possible, they should get rid of this Clause tonight. This would be an assurance that they want to get rid of the whole Bill as soon as they can.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like everyone else in the House, I have always regarded the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) as an effective and persuasive Parliamentarian. I particularly so regard him when he makes a speech with which I agree as to the greater part of it, but I was sorry—and I hope that he will take this from me with sincerity—that he devoted his great gifts to a very skilful argument in favour of the proposition that he and his hon. Friends should not carry the Amendment, and their powerful arguments for it, to what most hon. Members regard as the logical conclusion in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had other methods of influencing his right hon. Friend. It would perhaps be indiscreet to inquire too closely into what they are but they have not been very successful so far. And I say with great diffidence that the hon. Gentleman was guilty of an error in Parliamentary tactics when he made it quite clear, at this early stage of the proceedings, that under no circumstances was he prepared to back the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude about the Government being defeated, but if he wants concessions by the Government he enormously weakened his tactical position to apply pressure by announcing in advance that under no circumstances, however inadequate, or indeed however provocative, might be the reply, would he and his hon. Friends vote against the Government. It may be that he had decided he was not going to anyway, but it would have been wiser to have left the Government in a little doubt about this. Might that not have induced, as these situations do, as anyone who has served in the Government knows, a certain mood of conciliation? Might there not have been a hurried meeting in the little room behind the

Chair in which the Departmental Ministers would be induced to make a gesture? I thought that the hon. Gentleman was letting down a serious point by taking the line that he did.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) talked a good deal of sense on the merits of the matter. I have always had the gravest doubts about the introduction of the criminal law into industrial negotiations. It has been tried but has hardly ever worked.
What puzzled me during the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham was his rather lengthy reference to the Honours List. Left-Wing Governments tend to cause these to proliferate. The Prime Minister has created more peers than anybody in history in a comparable time, and it was, after all, the great Lloyd George whose creations caused the City of Cardiff to be known generally as the "City of Dreadful Knights".
2.30 a.m.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a fair point when he reproached my hon. Friends. I am not saying that I am necessarily in favour of softness in the legal treatment of trade unions. In all honesty and frankness I must say that, on the civil side, the immunity enjoyed by trade unions from action by a person aggrieved because of events occurring during a trade dispute is something that should be looked at. But this is different. This is not a question of the civil side of the law; it is a question of criminal penalties. It is not a question of putting trade unions in the position of everyone else. There is much to be said for that in civil law. This is a case of singling out trade unions for special and adverse treatment under the criminal law.
It is quite consistent for people, like me, who have often expressed grave doubts whether it is right that trade unions should be allowed to have privileges in civil litigation—which were rightly given to them when they were small and weak and poor sixty years ago but which sit rather ill on them today, when they are rich and powerful, and can sometimes do injustice to individuals who are denied their normal right of access to the courts—to say, on the other hand, that to single out trade unions, as the Government did last year, for worse treatment than other people


under the criminal law is wrong, and that the provisions that allows this should go, even though, on other occasions when we should be in order in doing so—though I doubt whether we should on this occasion—we may argue that their immunity, on the civil side, from persons aggrieved requires consideration.
What makes this so artificial is that it is conceded that there have been no cases. Does the First Secretary seriously expect that there will be any? If not, surely it is wrong to have this provision on the statute book. Surely it is wrong o have criminal penalties enacted if there is no reasonable likelihood of using Item? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that in a year's operation of this provision it has never been invoked, and will tell us whether he thinks there is the slightest possibility that he will need to invoke it during the currency of the present Measure.
Secondly, I should like to know whether, if this Clause continues to operate, it will affect hon. Members. Orders made under last year's Act are highly political in their effect. The right hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friends have voted against every Order that he has made. If outside the House hon. Members make speeches saying that it is absolutely monstrous that these Orders should have been made and a strike follows upon our speeches, will we be held to have taken steps to persuade others to take part in that strike? Is it really suggested that what in my view would be legitimate political action by hon. Members might involve them in criminal penalties? The right hon. End learned Attorney-General was in the Chamber earlier on, but he has now gone. The House should be clear on this point.
Let me come down to brass tacks. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I took a very strong line against what I regarded as the mean little Order that he made against the increase which the employers of the limb fitters at Roehampton—Messrs. Hangers—had agreed to give those men who do a vital job for the war disabled and other limbless. I took tie view—and I hold it still—that it was a mean, petty little Order, which had nothing to do with the national economy. I; the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he could invoke the criminal law

against me if I said that in my own constituency in the neighbourhood of Roehampton and a strike followed? I make no pretence to great persuasive powers, but, on a case as good as that, it is at least possible that some of those concerned might be inclined to take action. In the particular case to which I have referred, I should deplore it, because of its consequences for the injured, but it could happen if one were to stress the attack which I then made, and still make, on the Government for their mean and shabby conduct.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, these are political issues. Every Order has been a political issue. The Opposition have firmly opposed them all. If we go on opposing them in speeches which attack the making of them as unfair and unjust, are we not at least getting near this subsection? Is it right that we should be exposed to that for expressing a legitimate view, a view which, moreover, is held by 90 per cent. of the country? Would speeches outside or even inside the House be within the scope of the criminal penalties? I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a vivid illustration of the mess he gets into when he brings criminal penalties into the matter.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out that we have here an opportunity to take this provision out of last year's Act, thanks to the sensible action of the hon. Member for Tottenham and his hon. Friends in putting down the Amendment. This is a responsibility of the House. If hon. Members follow their views on the bare merits of the matter, there will be an overwhelming majority saying that it should be taken out. Hon. Members opposite, apparently, are not prepared to follow the logic of their argument to a conclusion. That is their business. But, if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment, he would be giving way to the general view of the House and of the country, and he would be doing no more than taking off the Statute Book a provision which has never been invoked and which he will not say is ever likely to be invoked.
Nothing but obstinancy can cause the right hon. Gentleman to resist the Amendment. The Act was pushed


through last year without proper discussion, shoved through in the middle of the night, with its major part introduced in Committee. Those circumstances have already involved the right hon. Gentleman in embarrassment and difficulty. He now has the chance, at relative leisure, to look at one subsection of it. He does not need that subsection. Can he not rise above Departmental narrowness and personal obstinacy and take it out now?

Mr. Orme: It is twelve months since we debated the original Act and the provisions of Part II, which were never implemented because they were superseded by Part IV. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that the Government had not used it; they have not been in a position to do so, and not until the end of this debate when Part II is activated for the first time will they be able to use it.
The debate on these provisions in the original Bill was led on this side by the then right hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Frank Cousins. It was a memorable debate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was leading for the Opposition at the time. It was a rather unique debate; all the participants were from this side of the House but for the right hon. Gentleman, who made a small contribution, though I acknowledge that the Opposition voted against the Clause at the end. Mr. Cousins moved the deletion of the Clause. First and foremost, our objection was a moral one to this form of legislation, an objection in principle to legislation against trade unions as such. We believe that this is wrong. It is wrong that in a free, democratic society there should be punitive legal sanctions for what we consider to be the legitimate practice of trade unionists in obtaining better wages and conditions for their members. If we have to resort to this we are giving up one of the basic tenets for which we stand. We are not prepared to countenance it. So we opposed it on that occasion.
We were told then that the legislation would be implemented only in extreme circumstances. But we have seen what has happened in relation to Part IV. I remember a Minister telling me "We have had one Order. I think that per, haps we shall not now have any more

Orders, or at least it is hoped that we shall not have many more Orders." But we went on to have 14 Orders. In the end they were coming out like confetti. If it had not been for Mr. Clive Jenkins, who suddenly put a stop to it, we might have had more.
Mr. Jenkins was following legitimate trade union practice in going for wage increases for higher-paid workers, particularly justified in a society where one sees rewards going out in all sorts of ways. Why should not people who are using their hand and brain in the interests of increased productivity and our industrial effort get a fair return? I am not a member of Mr. Jenkins' union, and I know that he has been a thorn in the side of the Government, and I also know that he does not carry the full support of the trade union movement or the T.U.C., but I consider that he has been a very valuable instrument in opposing this legislation and in proving some of it to be bad legislation. He has played a very democratic part in our democratic society, and I think that we should acknowledge that. I do not agree on all aspects of policy with Mr. Jenkins, and perhaps in the finality of his conception of an incomes policy, but I think that on this issue credit should go to him and his union.
What worries me is that there is no saying that if we pass this legislation the Government might not see fit to try to take out the thorn in relation to implementing Section 16 of Part II against that union or its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that the Government would not use it. But we have no categorical assurance. If they are not going to use it, there is no need to have the provision and it can be deleted.
As we have said, this is a longstop. In relation to the incomes policy and the longstop, we had a most articulate and erudite explanation from my right hon. Friend last night about what was meant by "voluntary" and "fully voluntary". It would make good reading in Punch, but not in HANSARD. Either the system is completely voluntary, or it is not voluntary.
2.45 a.m.
If my right hon. Friend wants a voluntary system, let him say so and let the


Bill be framed accordingly. I recognise that we must not have a tree-for-all, but a voluntary system means that it must be completely voluntary, with the trade union movement accepting certain responsibilities. I assure the Government that the trade unions are aware of the nation's economic difficulties and the need to increase productivity. Nobody can accuse the British trade union movement of being irresponsible, certainly since the war. Indeed, in certain cases the unions might have used their power to get better wages and conditions for their members.
The T.U.C. is opposed to the implementation of Part II. This was made clear at the executives' conference. They expressed themselves against any further legislation along the lines of Part IV, and they are opposed to Part II. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said last night that this is a weaker form of the earlier legislation and that compulsory powers are fading out, but is this true? Part II is now considerably stronger compared with the legislation of July of last year, since the period of delay has been extended from four to seven months. This is, therefore, an even stronger Measure, backed by punitive provisions. It might he said to be weaker than Part IV, but that gave the Government unlimited power for a limited period of 12 months. As I have shown, this legislation is really stronger.
In the disagreements we had with the Government about the incomes policy, we really got bogged down on the question of punitive provisions. We had this out time and again with the First Secretary's predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, and I repeat what we said then that the trade unions resent this type of legislation and are not prepared to accept it, from this or any other Government. With co-operation from our well-organised and highly sensible trade unions, the Government could obtain economic growth and development without these punitive provisions. Why threaten the unions in this minimal way? We have been challenged over voting, but few hon. Members opposite have acted as we have over our principles in this Parliament, but we will make up our own minds.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the Clause. It will be a sticking point for the trade union movement and it will be returned to again and again: I will not be satisfied until it is deleted.

Mr. Higgins: This has been a fine debate and it is sad that it should be taking place at this time of the morning, when it will receive limited Press coverage. The Government have been "trigger-happy" in moving Closures of these debates, and I hope that if they do so on this occasion we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite.
The debate stems from one in Committee on 2nd August last year, when two Amendments were moved by the then right hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Cousins, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Mr. Cousins said that the First Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary,
… having repeatedly mentioned his associaton with my own organisation, will realise that this Clause must send shudders down the spine of all those trade unionists who read it. It makes a criminal offence of normal trade union action.
These words were echoed in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who used the expressions "bad economics", "morally wrong" and "politically disastrous". This is the Clause of the parent Act which hon. Members want to remove from the Bill and it is helpful to consider the Amendment in the light of last year's events.
Mr. Cousins last year said:
I have very little hope that we shall get trade unionists to understand that if an employer refuses more money, and refuses under instruction from a Government, and they then get round to the stage of saying they will take action in the normal way, they would then be guilty of committing an offence punishable by law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966, c. 371, 374.]
But the Government have taken no action under these penal provisions. The Clause will be a temptation to them and there is no guarantee that they will not act under it. The Government are not retreating, as they said they would, from Part IV to Part II but are perpetuating Part IV, especially in this case.
Yesterday, I asked a Question about the Birmingham car delivery case. We


still do not know if the Government propose to do anything in that case, although the ostensible reason for including the Clause is in some sense an illusion. We believe, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out, that it is a paper tiger. Nonetheless we are opposed to these actions and this Clause in particular, because it is distasteful.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said last year that we proposed to support Mr. Cousins and added:
We dislike intensely these sections, the penalty on trade unions and all the impact of the Bill as a whole on employers and employees".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 375.]
It is abundantly clear to hon. Members that the reasons why we might go into the Lobby are considerably divergent. It would be wrong for us to suggest that we do not believe that there are radical needs for a reform of the law on trade unions. But we do not believe that this kind of legal action should be taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out that this brings in the criminal law rather than the civil law, and this makes a fundamental difference to the whole approach of the Government to the Bill. We realise that hon. Members opposite will make up their own minds on the Amendment, but they certainly oppose, as we oppose, the element of intimidation and compulsion. We feel that this is contradicting fundamental industrial relations and, for that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Several of us have been here since ten o'clock and have listened to the whole of the debate. It would be most unfair if we did not have an opportunity to speak on this major Amendment, which is the most important of all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that that is not a point of order. The Chair does its best in selecting hon. Members who rise to take part in the debate.

Mr. M. Stewart: We should notice that the Amendment relates to what are described as the penal sections not merely of Part IV or in relation to the Bill. It would have been possible to frame an Amendment saying that any actions of this kind arising out of any standstill powers in the Bill should not have penal sanctions applied to them. But the Amendment goes wider than that and we must discuss it on the understanding that we are not now simply concerned with the special provisions of the Bill and Part IV. We are concerned with a proposal that the penal section of Part II should disappear permanently. I want to make clear what is at issue.
It should also be made clear that the Government are moving from a position of greater legal powers to a position of lesser legal powers. I do not think that that can be seriously disputed. The point of the Amendment is that even if there were no Part IV or lesser powers in the Bill, the supporters of the Amendment would still object to the existence of the penal Clause in Part II.
Let us analyse what Part II does. It provides for a standstill for a lesser period than was provided for and solely for the purpose of having the facts of the matter brought in for examination by the Prices and Incomes Board. The principle in Part II is very much more limited than that of Part IV. This is a process of asking the parties to halt while the whole question is examined. Moreover, if people hold a wage increase for that very limited period and for that purpose, there is nothing in Part II to prevent them from getting the pay retrospectively after the standstill is over.
3.0 a.m.
One should therefore notice the very limited and circumscribed position of the powers under Part II. It is entirely open to hon. Members to say that despite the limited nature of Part II they do not believe that for that period—even for that limited period—and even with the possibility of retrospective payment thereafter, there ought to be even that temporary standstill on wages in any circumstances at all. But that does not seem to me to be a reasonable position to take up in all circumstances.
Further, Part II can never be in existence unless the House by affirmative Resolution has brought it into existence,


and once that has been done, it can exist only for a maximum of 12 months. I stress how limited the whole situation is. For these penal Clauses to come into action, the House must have decided that it is legitimate to activate Part II—and that cannot be done for an unlimited period but only for a maximum of 12 months at once. Even when that is done, it is still possible to impose the standstill only for the limited period and for this limited purpose.
If a standstill comes into existence in these special circumstances we might have this position: an employer has been precluded by law from paying a wage increase for this limited period. If the Amendment were passed the employer would be precluded by law from paying the increase, but people who took strike action against him in order to try to compel him to do something which he could not do without breaking the law could do so with impunity. I state that because it seems to me that if we accept the proposition that it is reasonable to have a standstill in the first place, then I do not think it can be maintained that it is reasonable to put an employer in that position.
The argument for the Amendment, therefore, must be that it is wrong, even for the limited period and the limited time of Part II, to have a standstill at all. I do not believe that a difference of opinion on the question whether it should ever be right to have a standstill for this limited time and purpose can be regarded as a fundamental difference in principle about the rights of trade unions. This is a difference on a matter of judgment as to the management of the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Biffen: What would be the position of trade unionists who struck to persuade employers to make a retrospective wage increase after the period of standstill has expired? The strike takes place during the period of standstill, the demand being that the retrospective payment should operate at the end of the period of standstill.

Mr. Stewart: It is clear that they were not trying to induce the employer to break the order, and therefore they would not be committing a criminal offence. That is fairly plain. I think that a certain degree of obstinacy must

be encountered on both sides—employer and trade union—before a situation of that kind could conceivably arise.
I have been asked what is the likelihood that this power would be used at all. The Government as such have some influence on the extent to which this power might come into play in so far as it is they who decide what orders to make. It is not, of course, the Government who decide whether in any particular case a prosecution should be launched. That, as always, is not a matter for the Government but for the Attorney-General acting in his judicial capacity. The influence of the Government in the matter lies simply in the orders they make.
The Government have demonstrated throughout the currency of Part IV that they do not make orders recklessly. I further assert that, during such time as Part II is in force, they will exercise similar caution and commonsense in any orders they may make.
The question of the use of this power comes down to this: One first has to accept that the situation has so developed that Parliament approves the activation of Part II. Then the Government have to decide that, in the exercise of their powers under Part II, they will make certain orders. Then one has further to suppose that, all this having happened, some group of people tries to compel an employer to break the law, to do something that the order forbids. One must further suppose that, the facts having been drawn to his attention, the Attorney-General considers it right to launch a prosecution.
Having loked at all these steps, the reply I give to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and to those of my hon. Friends who raised this matter, is that it is extremely unlikely that this power would be used—extremely unlikely. I am then asked, "Then why have it in at all?". But the House frequently passes laws containing certain provisions about which one could say that it was extremely unlikely that anyone would so behave that they would be held to be in breach of the law. We never pass laws which say that people who break them will not be liable to any penalty. I hope that the House will not regard this as a flippant example, but some years


ago we passed a Statute requiring the directors of the Tate Gallery to do certain things and in my innocence, not being a lawyer, seeing that there did not appear to be a penal clause, I asked what would happen if they did not do these things. I was assured that they would be guilty of a misdemeanour in common law and might be sent to prison for two years. Of course, this was highly unlikely to happen.
It is highly unlikely to happen in this case but it would be impossible for any Government in any Statute to say, "Here is something required by law but we undertake in advance that literally in no circumstances whatever will anyone be prosecuted." That would not be a enable position. For the reasons I have advanced it is extremely unlikely that such a situation would arise in this case. The Government, by the exercise of their order making power, would always endeavour to ensure that they did not behave in a provocative and silly manner.

Mr. Mikardo: One can understand that there must be circumstances in which the Government must legislate for the odd, exceptional case. But does my right hon. Friend think it worth while to do that when the legislation that might never be used is so offensive to a very large section of the community that it destroys the possibility of the voluntary co-operation that the Government want? Is the game worth the candle in this case?

Mr. Stewart: Clearly, on a matter of fact, my hon. Friend is wrong. The trade union movement has made it perfectly clear, that despite its differences with the Government about what statutory powers there ought to be, it does not regard those differences as a reason for refusing voluntary co-operation. That has been made clear over and over again.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raised what I am bound to regard as the bogey of hon. Members who oppose these Orders, possibly in violent language, not in the House, being subsequently prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer and will surely accept that there is an enormous difference of principle between saying that this is a bad, unjust, wicked law and inciting people to break it. If

there is not that distinction, then a great deal of what we call democracy is in peril, because one of the basic ideas of a State which proceeds according to the rule of law in anything approaching democracy is that citizens should be prepared to say, "We obey the law and do not incite people to break the law made by a democratically elected Parliament, but we reserve our right to say that we think that this is a scandalous law and we will rouse public opinion to get it changed in the proper constitutional manner."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is impeccable. What is in issue is its applicability to this provision—
or persuade others to take part in a strike".
If an hon. Member makes a speech deeply critical of one of these Orders and does so in an area where the employees concerned live and a strike follows, including among those taking part people who have listened to that speech, might it not be said that he had persuaded them to take part in that strike?
The right hon. Gentleman said that prosecutions would take place only on the authorisation of the Attorney-General. Will he confirm that that is so under this provision?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. Prosecutions under this provision require the consent of the Attorney-General.
I must remind the House how wildly hypothetical we are now getting. For a prosecution to succeeed, it would have to be shown that the person making the speech was at the very least persuading. To say, "I regard this as a scandalous law" cannot reasonably be held to be the same thing as, "I urge or persuade you to break it". The two propositions are not the same. [Interruption.] Surely my hon. Friends accept that. Were there not many instances during the years of Tory Government when we said at meetings that we regarded this, that or the other law as infamous? Could it be said that on each occasion when we did that we were deliberately inciting people to break the law? I do not think that that can be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned the Education Acts. This was some long


time ago, but the people there concerned did what they did deliberately, knowing, and making no bones about it, that they were persuading. My hon. Friend was concerned simply about people making a speech to say that this was a bad law and being told afterwards that they were inciting others to break it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a bad law. The law is not at issue. What is at issue is a bad individual action of the Government in making a particular Order. That is very different.

Mr. Stewart: That is quite right. I should have said a bad Order, but the point is the same. The Order would have the force of law, but there is an enormous difference between saying that it is a bad Order which ought not to have been made and persuading people to break it.
3.15 a.m.
There must be a difference between being able to express one's opinion as to whether a law is good or bad, and persuading people to break it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) has any doubt about this, is he to maintain that saying that the law is bad is the same as persuading people to break it? If he persuades people that this is true he will put a large number of his hon. Friends in danger for speeches that they have made during the years of Tory government. The two things are not the same. I must dismiss the bogey conjured up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

Mr. John Lee: My right hon. Friend still has not got the point. Is it not a fact that the wording of this section is so widely drawn that the use of the words "compel, induce or influence" provides for the inclusion of even the most mild form of persuasion to be brought within its purview?

Mr. Stewart: No, because all those words follow after taking action that is intended to have that effect. There must be the intention to put the employer in a position where he has to break the law. We need not pursue this point further, because it is common ground that the circumstances in which any prosecution could arise are very few indeed. The House wants to be assured of that. What I cannot accept is the further argument that because the circumstances are very

few, no penal sanction should be there at all. That is not a proposition that one could accept in the making of a law. We make a great many laws and we hope and expect that the number of occasions when they will be broken and when criminal prosecutions will follow, will be very small. We should not say that for that reason we should make laws without penal sanctions.
I want to take up the wider issue of principle involved in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who moved this Amendment. He said that Government policy was to provide stimulants for people who make profits, and deterrents for wage earners. That is a totally incomplete picture. One of the things that we have sought to encourage by the prices and incomes policy is the promotion of productivity agreements. This is one example of a clear stimulant to people who earn their living by wages and salaries.

Mr. Mikardo: It should be in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is a good enough Parliamentarian to know that a thing can be of full force in a Bill even if one has to dig out in the Schedule the reference to it. He will know that in an Act regulating the form of worship in the Church of England the whole of the Book of Common Prayer is a Schedule to the Act.

Mr. Mikardo: May I give my right hon. Friend the most categorical assurance that I did not know that.

Mr. Stewart: The number of interesting things that we learn from one another during these debates is quite remarkable.
The reason why last night we rejected the Amendment about productivity agreements was that there is already in the Bill, via the Schedule, a part encouraging productivity agreements. Last night's Amendments would actually, although the movers did not realise it, have circumscribed the Minister's powers to promote productivity agreements.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to this Amendment.

Mr. Stewart: I beg your pardon. I was taking up an interjection by my hon. Friend. This matter arose from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for


Tottenham, who said that we were providing nothing but deterrents for workers, and stimulants for those who made profits. I was saying that part of the nature of the prices and incomes policy is to point continually to the connection between increased productivity and the possibility of increasing real wages through increased productivity. This is a stimulant. In general my hon. Friend tried to argue that the Government's approach to wages was wholly oppressive. What I think he has not noticed is that what matters in the end to wage-earners is real wages rather than money wages. What matters to all people who have incomes is the real purchasing value of those incomes and not the amount in pounds, shillings and pence. One purpose of having a prices and incomes policy is to protect the level of real wages.
My hon. Friend presented what I am bound to regard as a fascinating but inventive story of bargains between this Government and foreign Governments about what is to be in the statute. We need not pay much attention to that; it belongs to the astrology column. It must be apparent to any Government that the health of its economy and the strength of its currency are closely bound up with the relation between two things—the growth of its real wealth and the growth of its money incomes. If the latter outstrips the former seriously, real trouble will arise which will affect everybody.
The aim of this policy is not as my hon. Friend seemed to think, to repress wages, but to get that correspondence between money income and the growth of real wealth on which everyone's prosperity depends. All aspects of the matter, including the one we are debating, have to be considered with that in mind. I ask the House to notice that the nature of this Amendment—which relates not simply to this Bill or Part IV but to Part II of the statute—is such that it would remove a penal sanction which, if the circumstances in which we had Part II and Orders made thereunder had arisen, it would then be not unreasonable to have and which should not give rise on any reasonable interpretation of events to the rather alarmist pictures which have been sketched on both sides of the House. That is both the common sense of the

matter and, I think, the lesson of the experience during the time that Part IV has been in operation.

Mr. Mendelson: I intervene in this debate to refer to the point which is involved and which is of great concern, particularly to those who represent constituencies in which there are large numbers of trade unionists. My right hon. Friend, in the speech he has just made, has given those of us who are called to speak after him an opportunity to concentrate heavily on the decisive points in his arguments. Before doing so, I wish to say how very pleased I am that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his contribution made the assertion that he was in favour of serious amendments of the law which would deal with trade unions.
We are debating tonight the introduction in this Bill of the same principle that was applicable to the earlier legislation and many objections are being raised to it. I suggest that we must concentrate clearly on the actual provisions. In general accusations of this Government being concerned to circumscribe the activities of trade unions would be beside the point. I leave that by merely saying that I have far greater fear of the plans in the minds of the right hon. Member and of the Leader of the Opposition, judging by past performance of the party opposite and what they want to do with the trade union movement, than any fear I have of the plans of the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I think that is very important and should not be overlooked when we have these high-flown speeches from the other side.
My right hon. Friend concentrated on the actual provision to which many of my hon. Friends object, but I think he underestimated the strength of feeling at the present time in the trade union movement on the application of the criminal law to trade unionists who are in pursuit of ordinary trade union activities. I do not believe this point has been made in just those words in the debate so far.
We are not dealing here, as my right hon. Friend well knows, with borderline activities which have been subject to the criminal law for a long time—for instance, how people behave in a picket


line. I need not labour the point because most hon. Members have had experience of the problems which arise during a strike. What we are dealing with here is the application of the criminal law for the first time for many years to industrial relations and industrial legislation and to what are normally perfectly legal industrial activities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to many aspects of this.
But the first case we have to consider is one which has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with divisions between various parties of Members of the House of Commons. What the Bill seeks to make illegal is the attempt by a group of workmen to persuade their employer to adopt a different course on a wage bargain. This is by far the most serious aspect of this part of the legislation, and, as I understand it, that is the main burden of my hon. Friend's argument in seeking to delete it by his Amendment. To this point my right hon. Friend has given no reply at all.
Nor do I believe that he was accurate in his assessment of trade union opinion on this matter when he replied to a point made previously by my hon. Friend who, he said categorically, was wrong in his assessment of trade union opinion.

Mr. Mikardo: Of course, my right hon. Friend completely misunderstood my intervention. He may get members of the General Council not to object to the Clause, but the point is that the first time any trade union leader is proceeded against under the Clause—and my guess is that none will pay a fine, and that will put the Attorney-General on the spot a; to whether to put him in prison—the first time a trade union leader or a shop steward is put in prison under this, the Government's policy has gone for a Burton.

Mr. Mendelson: That is precisely the pint. That was the vital import of the intervention.

Mr. M. Stewart: The intervention which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has made now, although a very interesting one, is quite a different one from the one he made in my speech.

Mr. Mendelson: I think we will have to leave to HANSARD and history the accuracy of that particular statement, but let us take my hon. Friend's intervention as he has now made it. Maybe it is the mark 2 version of his original intervention. Let us take the last form of the intervention, and take it as the basis for debate.
If we take it in this way, then the point which my right hon. Friend and the Government have failed to face so far is this. It is all very well to say they hope this legislation will never have to be used, particularly all these stages which have to be gone through, but there is here a major difference between Part IV and this Bill. Part IV was meant to apply a general standstill for a period of immediate emergency. Here we have a position where there are going to be value judgments given as to what is a reasonable claim. It will not be a simple matter of saying that no claims can be allowed. It will be a matter where passions may be aroused, particularly as we move out of the period of standstill and the period of severe restraint. Groups of workpeople may be convinced that, having waited so long, their claim is one which is fully justified, and they may, therefore, easily come to the conclusion that they are entitled to apply ordinary methods of persuasion to their employers.
3.30 a.m.
What my right hon. Friend has failed to reply to is the profoundly important point that arises. If such groups of work people are trying to persuade their employers and, as so often happens in the course of conversation across a table, they mention that they are so convinced that their claim is right that, unless agreement is reached, there might be enough feeling among the men whom they represent for strike action to be decided upon, will my right hon. Friend apply the law and say that a criminal offence is being committed under this Clause? It is important for us who represent many trade unionists and work people in our constituencies to worry about this much more than the point which worries the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. We have little concern for the position of Members of Parliament. They can look after themselves.
What we have reason to inquire into before the legislation is passed is whether


this Clause, without the Amendment, would not seriously endanger considerable numbers of work people who are acting quite innocently and in the belief that they are pursuing normal negotiations with their employers. It is to this point that no reply has been given. Because no reply has been given, it is all the more essential that the Government should accept this Amendment.

Mr. Biffen: If the House of Commons were an educational establishment, one might reasonably call this discussion "The Frank Cousins Memorial Debate". It is almost exactly a year ago that precisely this Amendment to delete Section 4 was moved in Standing Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, at six o'clock in the morning of 2nd August—

Sir D. Glover: Another two and a half hours.

Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to say how long it will go, but my contribution will not be long.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made some comment which I thought was slightly disparaging to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the nature of any penal legislation which might flow from Tory Party policy. However, in moving precisely this Amendment, Mr. Frank Cousins said a year ago:
I would suggest that this is likely to do more damage to the relationship between … trade unionists and their employers, than anything that has happened in my lifetime, inclunding the 1926 Act."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 374.]
I believe that those words are the most formidable indictment of the significance of the legislation which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is seeking to delete by his Amendment.
There is no doubt that, when it was first ventilated a year ago, it was in the context that it will never be used. Indeed, a year ago the proposition was that Part II was never likely to be invoked, and again one needs no more evidence than the remarks of Mr. Frank Cousins during that debate, when he said:
It is a nice sounding phrase that says 'I do not intend to put Part II into effect. I hope the voluntary system will work', but the auto-

matic response is What if it does not work?'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 373.]
We know that the culmination of tonight's debate will be an Order invoking Part II of the prices and incomes legislation. The fear is that there is an element of drug addiction on the part of the Treasury Bench, and that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been hooked into some form of continuing intervention. Although the argument may be that the Amendment is not necessary because the Order will lapse after twelve months, bearing in mind the experience of the last twelve months, does anyone doubt that there will be another Bill twelve months from now?
The third point which I would like to make is one which has been made several times. It relates to the sheer practicability of the legislation. A number of hon. Members have made the point that the legislation is very loosely drawn. These arguments were made last year. Between last year and today we have had the experience and advantage of seeing what Mr. Clive Jenkins and a bevy of lawyers can do to ill-drafted legislation. This should be a constant warning and reminder to the House that, for the sake of its own good name and reputation, it should ensure that the legislation it passes can stand the test of examination in the courts. If it cannot, it should not be proceeded with, and the Amendment seeks to delete a thoroughly ill-drafted piece of legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has an obligation on two counts. First, if the Amendment is not pressed to a Division, and he does not vote with us, there is a likelihood that this indifferent legislation will go through and remain on the Statute Book, to the discredit of Parliament. Secondly, this is not so much a paper tiger, with respect to my hon. Friends, as a potential Trotskyites' charter which will undermine every responsible trade union leader, and place a tremendous power in the hands of every shop floor agitator. It is wrong to say that employers may be at some marginal disadvantage if the Amendment is passed. If the Amendment is passed, it will curb the activities of shop floor wreckers, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry), who, on an identical Amendment moved twelve months ago, was prepared to march through the Lobbies with the Tory Party,


at least vocally, as it was in Committee upstairs, will take the stand that he did then, because nothing that has happened since then can convince him that the Government have moved towards the position advocated by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is the doyen of radicals, corrosive in debate, charming in style, but without a formidable record when it comes to the use of power and influence. Have the Government really moved so much towards his position that he can advise his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South to behave in a totally different way this evening from what he nobly did twelve months ago?

Mr. Robert Carr: I am sorry if I am in any way keeping out some hon. Members opposite. It is difficult for me to comment on this. Patronage Secretaries of all parties and Governments sometimes take on a suspicious look, and I had a feeling that unless .I stake my claim to wind up at the Dispatch Box now I might be too late. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise that I have not kept them out.
We cannot let the debate come to an end without protesting strongly at the nature of the reply which we have had from the First Secretary. At one time, towards the end, his speech degenerated into a general knowledge class. After the first few moments of his speech I could not help wondering whether he had not got his brief mixed up. It seemed to have nothing to do with the substance of the Amendment.
In his opening remarks he addressed himself to the Amendment. His argument seemed to be designed to stress how limited were the powers in Part II of the 1966 Act. The only conclusion that we could draw from that was that the First Secretary was telling the House, "A heavy penalty is less heavy if it is applied to a less heavy offence." The only argument of substance that he adduced for resisting the Amendment concerned the employer being protected by law from paying an increase and being subject to pressure by a strike or a threat of a strike from his employees. He said that such an employer needed some protection in that respect. But is this a real

protection? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said earlier, the Government are paying lip service to fairness. It is only a paper tiger. It is not a real protection. As the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, if the Government ever used this power the balloon would go up and the whole policy would collapse. The Government's argument about fairness is a purely theoretical one, which has no practical bearing on the case. The provision does not give any real protection or sense of fairness to employers. It is hypocritical lip service to the idea of fairness.
The remarkable thing about the provision which the Amendments seeks to remove is that it is in Part II of last year's Act, and not Part IV. We are told—and this is the Government's whole case—that the compulsory stage is a temporary one, and the new stage into which the Bill takes us is a move towards voluntary system. But is it, when it has a Clause like this in it? Is it a move towards a voluntary policy when it has a Clause imposing criminal sanctions on trade unionists for doing what several hon. Members opposite have pointed out are in the normal course of a trade unionist's functions and duties to do. How can it create the feeling that we are moving into a voluntary system when we are asked to pass a law which has this criminal sanction in it in respect of trade unionists?
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was right when he said that the Clause is contrary to the whole spirit as well as the practice of the trade union movement. That movement and a Measure with this Clause in it cannot live together for long. One must go. Here is a cardinal example of what hon. Members on this side of the House—and many hon. Members opposite—have been pointing out to the Government, in the Second Reading debate and on various Amendments and Clauses in Committee and on Report.
The Bill is phoney. We have either to have more compulsion than the Bill provides for, or less. The Government claim, in a wishy-washy way, that they are moving towards this stage. I cannot believe it when they refuse to accept the Amendment.
3.45 a.m.
The hon. Member for Tottenham said that "being tough with the trade unions" had at first been thought to be an electoral asset and had now been found not to be, and he went on to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was making the same mistake because, in a recent speech, he proposed that we should "get tough" with the trade unions. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, there is all the difference in the world between imposing criminal sanctions and penalties on trade unionists for doing what is not only their legal but their natural job and saying, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did, that one should have a reasonable framework of law and civil liability within which to operate.

Mr. Mendelson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when his party was in Government, several schemes were canvassed which were intended to circumscribe and limit by law the actions of trade unions in their normal industrial relations and in pursuit of their normal industrial activities? My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham was referring to that.

Mr. Carr: We cannot debate it now, but that certainly was not what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was recommending in the speech to which

reference has been made. Hon. Members must realise that, if they do not accept the position under the Bill—and we support them in that—there must be an alternative to it. We believe that the sort of alternatives to which my right hon. Friend referred in that speech are coming more and more clearly to be seen as the only practical ones to which we must turn. It is not contrary to freedom to have to operate within a framework of law and to be subject to normal civil liabilities. But it is contrary to freedom to have the policy of this Bill backed by these penal sanctions. This is why we shall on no account support legislation which contains a provision of this kind and why we shall vote against the Government on it.

Even at this late stage, I ask the First Secretary of State to think again about it and, at least, to respond to his hon. Friends in something more like the spirit in which they have appealed to him. If ever there was truth in what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about having no feeling for what happens on the shop floor, it was demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 111.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Maclennan, Robert
Rankin, John
Thornton, Ernest


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rees, Merlyn
Tinn, dames


Molloy, William
Reynolds, G. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Moonman, Eric
Richard, Ivor
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Moyle, Roland
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phllip(Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ogden, Eric
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Whitaker, Ben


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert
Whitlock, William


Oram, Albert E.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Winnick, David


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Small, William
Yates, Victor


Pavitt, Laurence
Snow, Julian



Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael



Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Taverne, Dick
Mr. W. Howie and Mr. Alan Fitch.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)





NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Baker, W. H. K.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E).
More, Jasper


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Neave, Airey


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Nott, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Ben, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pardoe, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bessell, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Sharpies, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon
Hunt, John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Tapsell, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Temple, John M.


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Erie
Webster, David


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
woodnutt, Mark


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil



Farr, John
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Faster, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector

Question put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

Division No. 447.]
AYES
[3.58 a.m.


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.


Baker, W. H. K.
Bossom, Sir Clive
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crouch, David


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.


Bessell, Peter
Campbell, Gordon
du Cann, Rt. Hn, Edward


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordis, John
Farr, John

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 138.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Royle, Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Sharpies, Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Grant-Ferris, ft.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gresham Cooke, R,
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus
Webster, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper
Whltelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodnutt, Mark


Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John
Worsley,' Marcus


Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Ctitheroe)



Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Francis





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Archer, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Ashley, Jack
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Price, William (Rugby)


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Rankin, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Rees, Merlyn


Boston, Terence
Hilton, W. S.
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, L.
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lew-sham. S.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Sheldon, Robert


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coe, Denis
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham.S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J, D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Dalyell, Tarn
Ledger, Ron
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Conway)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
McCann, John
Tuck, Raphael


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitaker, Ben


Faulds, Andrew
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Ginsburg, David
Noel-BakerRt.Hn.Philip(Oerby,S.)
Yates, Victor


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ogden, Eric



Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. W. Howie and Mr. Alan Fitch.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Oswald, Thomas



Gregory, Arnold
Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

The House has a right to know from the First Secretary, or better still from the Leader of the House, if he would wish


to tell us, how much longer we are to continue on the road which we have embarked upon because of the proven incompetence of the Leader of the House in his job. He was told some time ago that the task which he had set the House was impossible, yet we find that at four o'clock on the secoind day we are still on Clause 4. We have the rest of the Report stage, the Third Reading, and, in theory, the Order to take.
I would like to put a particular proposition to the First Secretary. He knows that we detest the Bill, and I am not going into those arguments now. I understand the urgency with which the Government feel they must have the Bill and, having embarked on this, I would not be surprised or resent it if the Government felt that they had to push forward to the end of it. But the same urgency does not and cannot apply to the Order. It is treating the House quite wrongly to ask it to take the Order after we have completed the Bill, and this may be many hours ahead. Anyone with eyes to see could tell last night and can tell again today that the strain which we are putting upon the servants of the House is becoming very nearly intolerable. There were small signs of the beginnings —1 will not say of a break down, but of a standard less than that which they delight to provide for us, and that is not their fault but ours—or rather, the fault of the Leader of the House.
Although I would not wish to dwell on the point, and although I am sure that he would not wish me to dwell on it, I think that the burden which we are putting on Mr. Speaker this week is quite intolerable. I do not think that any man should be asked to bear it. Most of us can get one night or perhaps two nights off, but he has to be here morning, afternoon, evening, night. He has to be here for Closures. The additional burden which the Leader of the House has put on the Chair through morning sittings and by moving Supply into the House must be beginning to tell. I leave it there, but I am sure that the whole House must agree that we must do what we can to lessen that burden.
I leave my remarks there and wait to hear what the First Secretary says. It is certainly more than reasonable at four

o'clock in the morning that we should ask what the target is, not in vague terms but in precise terms. I have a feeling that if we can move the Order to some other day—even next week, because there is not the same urgency about it as there is about the Bill—we might be able, with that target set, to make more progress. I therefore suggest specifically to the First Secretary that he should make it clear now that we do not intend to proceed with the Order at this Sitting.

Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has put his suggestion clearly and categorically, and if that is—as I think it may be—the view of a considerable section of the House, then I think that it would be right to accede to it. The Government should make it clear that we believe it right to secure the conclusion of Report and Third Reading of the Bill at this sitting. Hon. Members who have been in fairly constant attendance are, as it were, in the swing of the Bill and many of the arguments are closely knit together, and it would be a waste of effort not to get as far as Third Reading tonight. I had the view that there would be advantages in taking the Order at the same time because the subjects are so closely related, but I recognise that it would not be desirable to go ahead with it if there is a considerable section of the House which takes a contrary view.
The right hon. Gentleman and I are therefore in agreement as to how far we should get, and I hope that, with due regard for proper discussion, we may all be able to work together to expedite the achievement of that target.

Mr. Macleod: I cannot in all honesty promise the First Secretary to work with him on the Bill because, as he knows, we loath the Bill. That must be made clear between the two sides of the House. But the First Secretary responded to my suggestion, and I am sure that he has given a sensible answer. It would be madness to embark on the Order. I understand the need that he feels to get the Bill. He has met me fairly on the points that have been made, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(PROTECTION OF EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE WITHHELD PAY INCREASES BEFORE JULY 1967.)

4.15 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 17, after 'pays', to insert 'or has paid'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, the House may discuss Amendment No. 31, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), in page 5, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 34.

The Attorney-General: Amendment No. 30 is simply a drafting Amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 5(1). This subsection gives protection to employers who have withheld pay increases contractually due before 21st July, 1966, by implying into the relevant agreement for the pay increase a condition that the employer is not legally liable to pay the increase if he pays remuneration at not less than the basic rate—that is to say, in the general case, the rate last applied before 21st July, 1966.
Clause 5(2) applies the protection to the first six months period covered by the agreement, including the case where the agreement included provision for the back-dating of the increase. In respect of the back-dated period, however, it is not altogether appropriate to express the implied condition as subsection (1) now does in the terms that are set out in that provision if the employer pays remuneration at a rate not less than the basic rate, and accordingly it is proposed to add the words "or has paid" as more appropriate to that precise situation.

Mr. R. Carr: Naturally we do not in any way question either your selection of Amendments, Mr. Speaker, or the way in which they have been grouped together. I think you will understand that these two Amendments are, however, of a rather disparate nature and that Amendment No. 31 is both of a different nature and a different weight. It is far from being a drafting Amendment, but it will be understood that, in order to express our view on it, we shall presumably have to vote on Amendment No. 30—unless, of course, as we are ever hopeful, the Government indicate that, in the appro-

priate way and at the appropriate time, they will do what we wish in Amendment No. 31.
Clause 5 is very long and has a great amount of detail in it which is almost incomprehensible in large part. It is, moreover, a Clause which in our view highlights one of the most objectionable features of the Bill and the Government's policy, namely, forcing breach of contract. We believe that to force breach of contract in industry is one of the most damaging things that can be done—damaging also, indeed, to the purpose that the Bill seeks to achieve.
The Clause typifies two other features of the Bill and the policy. First, it demonstrates the almost impossible complexity of the whole subject. This was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in Committee, when he said:
It symbolises the difficulties, the unpredictable complications which arise wherever statutory form is invoked to determine either prices of income."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th June, 1967; c. 262.]
Secondly, it demonstrates the results of sloppy drafting because, to some extent, the need for the Clause is to protect employers from some of the results of the 1966 Act arising from the drafting of that Measure, the subsequent court action and the confusion which has occurred.
The Clause requires close scrutiny and, given more time, there would be many Amendments which could be moved to it. We have chosen this because it is directed to an aspect of which we have had practical experience in the past year.
In order to explain what we are trying to do, I must briefly take the House through what we understand to be the position under the Clause. Subsection (1) imports into agreements between employer and employee an implied condition which allows the employer not to pay an increase in earnings which he had undertaken to pay. Subsection (2) then goes on to say that this implied condition shall be limited to remuneration payable for periods not exceeding six months in the aggregate. Paragraph (a), which is the subject of the Amendment, says two things about that aggregate period of six months. It says, first, that the periods covered by the condition may be either continuous or not and, secondly, that it


may include periods before the making of the agreement.
Assuming that we have to accept the Clause overall, something which we do not like, we see no objection to the first part of subsection (2,a) which says that the period covered by the implied condition may be either continuous or not, but we take strong objection to what we think is meant by the second part, which says that not only may the period be continuous or not, but it may include periods before the making of the agreement.
It is possible to imagine that an employee, or group of employees, has a long-standing agreement with an employer that his earnings level shall he adjusted automatically at certain periods according to changes in the cost-of-living index. On top of that, at some stage—it would be in the period covered by this policy—the employee might make a new agreement with the employer for a basic increase in his earnings level and the new agreement, jacking up his earnings to a different level, would be superimposed on the old agreement providing for adjustments according to movements in the cost-of-living index. The new and the old agreements would go on together.
In this policy which the Government want us to pass and with which we do not agree it should be clear that the standstill would apply only to the new and not the old and continuing agreement. If Clause 5(2,a) is allowed to stand as it is, it is probable that the old, underlying and continuing agreement will be covered as well.
We say that at least there is uncertainty about it and we believe that that uncertainty has been shown by one or two cases which have cropped up in the last year and which have come before the House in the form of Prayers against Orders. For example, there was the Order about the staff of the Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association. There was an element of the staff receiving increments on a regular basis which was separate from the wage increase which gave rise to the Order. Another Order was that dealing with employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department.
In that case some of those employers affected by the Order were members of

N.A.L.G.O. The Order prevented the payment of an increase of 7 per cent. under the award to local government employees, which became payable on 1st February this year, after six months' deferment. It not only deferred that but also deferred the payment of the increase in differentials, to which the Order was specifically intended to relate.
Here we have a case of the Order catching both the negotiated increase and an underlying continuing arrangement for adjustment which was of long standing. It is fair to say that in the end, in both those cases, the Minister of Labour gave permission for the underlying increases to be granted. There was a period of considerable uncertainty about it, and through that uncertainty, harm was done to industrial relations and confidence in the future, without any gain to the Government's prices and incomes policy.
The Government admitted this by the eventual action of the Minister of Labour in saying that those long standing underlying agreements could be honoured. If we accept this Bill we shall be importing into the future the same sort of uncertainty as has caused trouble in the past. If our interpretation of this very complicated, and to many of us, incomprehensible, Clause is correct, we hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: At this breakfast hour, I will detain the House for only the length of a sentence or two in order to draw attention to the juxtaposition of what we are doing now and what we were doing a few minutes ago. The Attorney-General, in moving this Amendment, pointed out that what he was doing was to stop up a possible loophole in the protections which the Bill gave to employers. It was making absolutely sure that there were no circumstances in which employers were not protected.
A few minutes ago his right hon. Friend the First Secretary was making absolutely sure of his inalienable rights to put trade unionists, shop stewards, and their leaders into gaol. The contrast could not be clearer or more stark, and could not more directly have been borne out by what was said a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who


pointed out that there was this discrimination between support given to employers by the Government and the attacks which they are making on trade unions.
If ever anything gave the game away, and made crystal clear, not only to the House, but to trade unionists, the bias of discrimination against trade unionists lying in the Government's policy, enshrined in this Bill, it is this.

Sir E. Brown: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). We have previously dealt with a Clause which is restrictive against the actions of trade unions, and we are now dealing with one which offers protection to employers.
This was a subject which gave the Committee a lengthy debate. I can offer hope to the right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends by making it clear that this Clause is another through which Mr. Clive Jenkins could drive a coach and horses. Clearly if an employer refuses to pay, and goes to court in order to protect his right under this Bill, all that needs to happen, and I am not inciting or persuading, is for a group of organised workers to walk out of their factory and say that they will not return until the employer pays up. I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that any action would be taken against them for so doing. This is why the Bill is a complete nonsense. I readily join with the hon. Member for Poplar in his assertion to his right hon. and learned Friend that we have had one lot of nonsense and now we are to have another. If someone wants to obtain something and is organised in a trade union, all he has to do is to withdraw his labour until the employer concedes his rights. Nothing that the Attorney-General can do can stop that except to put masses of trade unionists in prison, and we have already had the assurance of the First Secretary that he will not put anyone in prison.
This Bill is a complete nonsense and I cannot see why we are staying up to this time in the morning putting this nonsense through.

4.30 a.m.

The Attorney-General: The Bill is not a nonsense but a valuable piece of

social machinery in this period of our continuing difficulties.
The deferments of pay increases which have taken place since the original Act came into force have been voluntarily accepted in a spirit of public spiritedness and generosity by the vast majority of employees of the country. The purpose of Clause 5 is to remove the basis for any legal action against an employer for the recovery of increases in pay withheld in accordance with the Government's policy for the periods of standstill and severe restraint despite the existence of contractual obligations to the contrary.
Subsection (2) provides that the defence shall be available for only six months in cases where the agreement were entered into before 21st July, 1966, and that this period of six months may include periods before the making of the agreement, that is to say, where the agreement provides for back-dating of the pay increase. That is the consequence of the words sought to be left out. The Amendment would delete the words:
and may include periods before the making of the agreement".
The effect of doing that would be to remove certainty that the defence is available in respect of these periods of back-dating of the pay increase.
The wording of Clause 5(1) provides that an employer would have
to pay to the employee for work for any period before July 1967 remuneration at a higher rate".
They imply that the periods to which I have referred would probably be covered by the Clause without the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out from subsection (2,a), but it is thought that it will put the matter beyond a peradventure if those words are retained. It is to deal with that limited situation that the words exist. I do not think they give rise to any of the anxieties of difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
I hope that in the light of that explanation he will be reassured about the significance of these words.

Sir E. Brown: What would be the position in the case I outlined where there is this protection afforded to the employer and trade unionists by an official strike came out of a factory and said that they would not return until


they got the concession from the employer? Will the Attorney-General tell the House if in that case the Government would prosecute the trade unionists?

The Attorney-General: Obviously after the period of standstill the criminal sanctions will not apply. One hopes that there will be responsible and good relations between employees and employers and that that situation would not develop. Otherwise the benefit to our community would be rapidly eroded and the sacrifice of the last year would have been in vain. I hope that no encouragement will come from this House for taking that kind of action.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in reply persuasively and moderately, as he always does, and he indicated that the apprehensions expressed by my right hon. Fiend in regard to the effect of the second part of Clause 5(2,a) were not well founded, at any rate in his view. One hopes that that is so, though a point such as that might, perhaps, be more appropriately included at a little more leisure and at a rather different time of day from this; but even if the apprehensions which were voiced by my right hon. Friend are unfounded I am bound to say that some of the observations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are really not such as to remove disquiet it relation to that Clause.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) criticised the Clause because, he said, it showed a sort of unreasonable dichotomy of outlook on the part of the Government—what he called tenderness to the employers and oppressiveness towards trade unionists. "Tenderness to employers" I do not think is a very happy description of what the Government are here doing. I do not think they are being tender to employers. What they are doing is to embark on very doubtful expedients in order to support their own policy.
In the Clause we get an amalgamation of constitutional improprieties. On an earlier Amendment I ventured to make some criticism of the retrospective provisions of this Bill. This Clause combines retrospection with inducement to breach of contract, and those really are two things which, even at half-past four

in the morning, should not pass in this House of Commons without objection being made. I was a little surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom, as he knows, I have very great respect, both personally and in his professional capacity, should have made a speech which sounded very much as though we nowadays take this sort of thing very much for granted—that we must expect retrospection on this scale in these matters, and that it really does not very much matter if we deliberately provoke breach of contract. If the Government's policy is that these things should be done, then the right way to do it is not to induce breach of contract and give statutory protection in regard to it.
I said this when we were debating the original Measure last year, and I say it again now, because it seems to me that on these constitutional matters we are liable to get on to a slippery slope. Things which last year were regarded as objectionable, or tolerable only for a period of emergency, are now being spoken of as part and parcel of our democratic society.
If I venture longer on that you might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am addressing myself to the inequalities and iniquities of the Clause, whereas I am taking a somewhat broad view of the terms of the Amendment. I wanted to say that, because it is important, whatever the hour of day or night, that these things should be said in this House.

Mr. R. Carr: With the leave of the House, I wish to press the learned Attorney-General on one or two points. He assured hon. Members on this side that he did not feel that the fears which we have and which I gave as one of the main reasons for this Amendment were justified. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that did not ring convincingly in our ears, because we were given that sort of assurance in last year's Bill, yet we had the two Orders; we had the confusion to which I have referred in the cases of the Exchange Telegraph and Press Association and the employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department. These muddles occurred. It is all very well for him to tell us now that he does not think that any ambiguity exists, but we should be happier if he gave us chapter and verse


and explained why it will be that, under this Bill, we shall be assured of not getting the sort of muddles which have occurred in the recent past. If he cannot reassure us more on that point, and because of the reasons of retrospection and other matters of principle raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), we shall press the matter to a Division.

The Attorney-General: The Bill is particularly complex, because great care has been taken to try to avoid the emergence of a state of confusion or the kind of difficulties which have arisen in the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal—with which I do not quarrel,

Division No. 448.]
AYES
[4.43 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Ashley, Jack
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Pavitt, Laurence


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bence, Cyril
Haseldine, Norman
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley, Roy
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Rankin, John


Boston, Terence
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, L.
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Snow, Julian


Davies, Dr. Emest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Luard, Evan
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitaker, Ben


Faulds, Andrew
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Gardner, Tony
Ogden, Eric
Yates, Victor


Ginsburg, David
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Baker, W. H. K.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biffen, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bell, Ronald
Biggs-Davison, John

of course—to one limited but not unimportant aspect of the Act.

I venture to think that, as it now stands, the Clause achieves the purpose to which it is directed, namely, to prevent the erosion of what has been gained by, as I submit, the voluntary withholding of pay increases during the last year. It gives a limited protection to employers who seek to take advantage of it and does so in terms which, to the best of our skill and ability, should hold water. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 99.

Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper


Body, Richard
Greeham-Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Cordon
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharpies, Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Tapsell, Peter


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. sir Derek


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Webster, David


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil



Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. Hector Monro


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 40, at the end to insert:
(c) the provisions of subsection (1) above shall not apply to a commitment to pay a further increase in remuneration to those in respect of whom an increase in remuneration or a reduction in normal hours of work had already been deferred under sections 28 or 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966.
This is a comparatively short Amendment and one which we can debate at reasonable length. We are seeking to cover the case where a wage increase has been superimposed upon a previously generally accepted arrangement or agreement whereby wages are expected to increase. In other words, a cost of living increase agreement may have been built into a certain series of arrangements between a trade union and an employer and during the period of severe restraint—which is largely the period covered by the Clause—it is found that on top of that an additional increase has taken place which has been frozen by the Government during the period of severe restraint. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the underlying contract prevails.
I understand that in the last debate the learned Attorney-General described the Clause, and the whole Bill, as a valuable piece of social machinery. It is very odd to describe as a valuable piece of social legislation a Clause which, with

the Bill as a whole, introduces such elements of retrospection in legal contracts and, in some ways, positive incentives for people to break contracts. But, at all events, it seems only right and proper that the effect should, at the least, not extend to underlying contracts, which may have been fixed for a considerable period ahead.
The relevant section of the multitude of White Papers which has been a feature of the Government's prices and incomes policy is paragraphs 32 and 33 of Cmnd. 3150, dealing with existing commitments. Paragraph 32 reads:
The operative dates of commitments to increase pay or reduce hours by specified amounts entered into on or before 20th July 1966, which were originally due to be implemented before the end of 1966, should be deferred for six months in accordance with Cmnd. 3073. The operative dates of such commitments which were originally due to be implemented in the first six months of 1967 should be deferred until at least 1st July 1967, unless they are regarded by the Government as satisfying the criteria for the period of severe restraint …
As I understand the position, if we do not make this Amendment, an agreement which was deferred under that passage in the White Paper may still be covered by the Clause, and, as a result, there would effectively be a double freeze, both on the basic underlying contract—say, a cost of living agreement—and on the individual wage increase covered by the


Government's compulsory Order. This would be wrong.

The Attorney-General: As I read it, the result of the Amendment would be to deprive employers of the defence afforded by Clause 5 in cases where an increase in remuneration has been deferred under Section 28 or 29 of the Act. There may be cases where the effect of an Order under those Sections may not have operated over the whole of the six months' period for which protection is given under the Clause.
Subsection (8) of Clause 5 deals with the position where restrictions apply under Section 28 or 29, and the effect of that subsection is to ensure that no employer can take advantage of the restriction imposed by the Sections in addition to the period of six months which is provided for under Clause 5(3). In other words, the maximum period of protection which the employer can have is six months, and that six months' protection in relation to any increase is to be treated as running even during the period when the restriction under Section 28 or 29 applies, so that there will be no further withholding of increases which can be visited upon the employee by reason of a combination—

Mr. Higgins: On the employer.

The Attorney-General: No, on the employee, who will not be able to sue the employer. There will, in other words, be no additional protection given to the employer over and above the maximum period of six months.
I hope that that explains the effect of Clause 5, and that in the light of that the right hon. Gentleman may feel that to accept the Amendment would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Clause and would be to defeat an aspect of it which at the moment seems to be satisfactory.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: If I may, with the leave of the House, speak again, I was not entirely clear from what the Attorney-General said whether the Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Clause—throughout we have maintained that we are against the Clause—or whether he was saying that it does not

seem to him to achieve the objective that we seek to achieve.
We are saying here that the Clause would seem to give protection if an employer were to withhold a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint would have been allowed. It seems to us—we are open to persuasion by the Attorney-General—to give protection to employers not only in the case of a single increase but also in the case of a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint White Paper, Cmnd. 3150, would have been allowed. We are not clear why the Government feel that this double protection, for the one which would have been allowed and for the underlying one, should be afforded. We should be most grateful if the Attorney-General could enlighten the House on this point.

The Attorney-General: The protection would apply only for six months in respect of the specific increase. It is conceivable that if there were two increases within the relevant period the protection would apply for a period of six months in respect of each of them.

Mr. Higgins: No, not if there were two increases within the period but rather where there was an underlying contract which, so to speak, came into effect automatically and there was the other increase on top of it. I am sorry to intervene in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. This is a difficult point at this late hour. However, I should be grateful if he would tell us whether the protection would enable the employer to refuse to pay not only the increase covered by the Order but a cost of living increase which he had agreed to perhaps many years before but which came into effect only at this moment.
It may well be that the Government do not intend to afford this protection, but unless we have misread the Clause, which is not difficult to do, the Government are not only protecting the employer where the Order has been made within the relevant period but are also enabling the employer to avoid responsibility for a contract made a considerable period before but happening to come into effect at this point. If this is still obscure, perhaps we could have an assurance that it will be looked at and referred to in another place.

The Attorney-General: I think the position is that all pay increases withheld by reason of the White Paper decisions, whether they are cost of living increases or increases in wages, are included within the ambit of restraint and that an employer who had withheld those increases would be entitled to the protection of the Clause for the period of six months from the date when the increment applied. So it applies to the whole situation.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is conceivable that two agreements might both receive this protection; and, in given circumstances, it flows directly from the language of the Clause that this would be so. Indeed, it is not conceivable but inevitable, which is an unfortunate situation because what we have called an underlying agreement is not within the mis-

Division No. 449.]
AYES
[5.7 a.m.


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Balsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Wall, Patrick


Drayton, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Webster, David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Peter
Brown, Bob (N't'le-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bence, Cyril
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Delargy, Hugh


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Chapman, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Bishop, E. S.
Coe, Denis
Dobson, Ray


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Eadie, Alex


Boyden, James
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Edwards, William (Merioneth)

chief of what the Measure is intended to cure. This being so, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adopt our suggestion and consider the matter in another place. He cannot, in his heart, be happy with this situation.

The Attorney-General: At this early hour—or late hour, whichever way one looks at it—it is difficult to be happy about anything. If the cost of living increase was not contrary to the criteria laid down, it would not be affected. If there is any doubt about the matter, we will certainly look into it, but I believe that the situation is covered by the Clause as it stands.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 134.

Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Ensor, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Reynolds, G. W.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Ginsburg, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Molloy, William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hamling, William
Moonman, Eric
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Albert E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Whitaker, Ben


Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, L.
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Winnick, David


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Yates, Victor


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rankin, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 33 in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The Amendment is similar to, but not identical with the one we have just discussed. It is to amend the Clause designed to give protection to the employer if he finds himself vulnerable as a result of having complied with the Government's prices and incomes policy.
The purpose of the Amendment is to probe the position when what are called multi-stage agreements are reached. I would point out to the Attorney-General, since one of the points he made on the last Amendment seemed to refer to this one, that there is a distinction between the case where there is an underlying agreement which might run for many years and on top of it a further wage increase is superimposed, and the case where there is no underlying agreement but the wage agreement is implemented in stages. This is a multi-stage agreement.
The protection afforded to employers by the Clause goes beyond what is specified in the White Paper Cmd. 3150. At paragraph 33 it says:
Where, however, the operative date of a previous commitment for a pay increase or reduction in hours (other than a relatively

minor improvement or an increase under a cost-of-living sliding scale agreement) relating to the same group of workers has already been deferred as a result of the standstill, the operative date of a commitment for a subsequent improvement need not be deferred.
It seems that the White Paper says that a single stage of such an agreement can be deferred but both stages cannot be. In these circumstances we do not understand why the Government have included the subsection. It would seem to afford protection for the employer who is acting contrary to the Government's declared policy on multi-stage agreements. For this reason I would have thought that the Government would accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the hon. Member said, the subsection relates to multi-stage agreements. I will explain the effects of the subsection. Imagine three groups of workers one of which is given an increase all at once; the second gets some now and some later; the third group also gets some now and some later, but in a different form and instead of having an increase of, say, 30s. followed by one of 10s. that group gets an increase of 30s. and this is superceded by an agreement making it 40s. There are only differences in the form of the cases. The effect of the subsection very broadly is that since all these three groups are in substantially the


same position, they would substantially suffer the same degree of deferment. Assuming that the employer—and this would be in accordance with Government policy—has at the time carried out such a deferment, he shall not be capable of being sued thereafter for the money so withheld.
So far, I trust, so clear. But the hon. Member raised a further point about the White Paper. The White Paper draws a distinction between some kinds of increase and others which it would be impossible to reproduce exactly in a statute. The White Paper first of all laid down the general principle that the same groups of worker should not suffer a double deferment, but that did not apply in the case of cost-of-living increases and it did not apply in the case of minor improvements. Nor did it apply where workers would receive one increase under a national agreement and then some of them would receive further increases under a local agreement, or possibly one group would receive so much under one local agreement and another increase under another local agreement. In the third case we are not talking about the same group of workers all the time. The local increase which I mentioned would come later than the national increase, and one would apply to one group of worker and one to another. The exact wording of the White Paper is that the same group of worker does not suffer a double deferment. That case is excluded from the White Paper.
The subsection as it stands gets as near to the White Paper as we can in a statute. I must add a general point. We must remember that the whole of Clause 5 refers to things which have already happened. Money has been withheld. The purpose of the Clause is to protect the employer from being sued and required to pay it. It would be impossible to find a case in which money has been withheld other than in accordance with Government policy as declared in either the White Paper on the Standstill or in that on Severe Restraint. He would have done so, and would only have done so, and would have been allowed by his employees to have done so, only if it had been in accordance with the policy. Consequently to give him protection is a reasonable and just thing to do.
I hope that the explanation has been clear. I must admit that I had to think for some time before I fully understood what it was all about, but I think that I do understand it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing would not dream of wishing to delete a subsection before he had ascertained what it meant. This is a complicated matter, but I think that the subsection is necessary if we are to produce the result which the whole Clause is intended to produce and which, whatever their views about the Bill, I think that hon. Members opposite would not dispute. Where money has been withheld by agreement with the union concerned—only by agreement, not so far tied up legally—it would not be a reasonable situation for the employer who withheld money in that way to be liable at any time during the next six years to be sued for it.
At some stage we must let everyone, employer and employed, know exactly where they stand. That is the purpose of the Clause. To get as near to that result as we can, we need this refinement of subsection (3) and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to let it remain in the Bill.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his exposition of the esoteric mysteries of subsection (3). He was a little unkind in blaming our Amendment. After all, it seeks to omit this obscure and offending provision. He was clear and cogent, as always but we are left with the extraordinary situation that, on his own admission, it has not been found possible to find words, even in this very lengthy subsection, which will embody the principles of the White Paper in statutory language. The right hon. Gentleman referred to various categories of particular agreements distinguished in the White Paper but not at all distinguished in the language of the subsection and which would not be distinguished as a matter of law.
Then the right hon. Gentleman fell back on the extraordinary proposition—extraordinary even at this late hour—that really it does not matter that the Clause is defective because probably the only cases in which it would arise would be those which were intended to be covered, and in any case he would not visualise other cases arising because, although they


come, as matters of law, within the language of the subsection, they would not be allowed to get away with it. What sort of language is that? That is what he said. If what he meant differed from what he said, it is not my fault.

Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing present and past. What I think is the situation is that employers have not got away with it—that, in the great majority of cases, they have not wanted to withhold money other than in accordance with declared policy. I do not think that they wanted to or, if they did, that they would have got away with it. Whichever way one looks at it, it has not in fact happened.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: They have to withhold increases contrary to the sanctity of contract in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman calls "declared policy" and what the Attorney-General calls the "requirements of Government policy." But again these are things not written into the Statute. Nor will they be.

Division No. 450.]
AYES
[5.30 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Ashley, Jack
Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William


Barnett, Joel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Moonman, Eric


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Boston, Terence
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Oram, Albert E.


Boyden, James
Hamlin, William
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, Bob (N'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hilton, W. S.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Coe, Denis
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, L.
Price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Rankin, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, C. W.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, central)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert


Dobson, Ray
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Snow, Julian


Ensor, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James

We are in the extraordinary position of being asked to interpret the law of the land in this sort of way. It all arises from the practice which has grown up of government by diktat or exhortation and the like. This subsection, which has properly been put on challenge, is just the last and one of the most striking examples of confusion. The draftsman has done his best in drafting and the right hon. Gentleman has done his best in explaining but, at the end of the day, we have a provision which is inadequate to do what it is meant to do.

Mr. M. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is the irresistible inference from what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is inadequate to do what it is meant to do. It is clumsy and will lead to grave complications. It is an illustration of the very unsatisfactory nature of this Bill as a whole.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 98.

Tuck, Raphael
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Varley, Eric G.
Whitaker, Ben
Yates, Victor


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Whitlock, William



Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery)
Mr. Walter Harrison and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. j. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Cay, Sir Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Temple, John M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Webster, David


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Erie
Whitelaw,Rt. Hn. William


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Worsley, Marcus


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)



Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 23, to leave out 'two months' and to insert 'one month'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'months' and insert 'weeks'.

The Attorney-General: It is a happy thing indeed, at this late hour, to be able to grant a concession, at any rate to my hon. Friends who have moved Amendment No. 36. The circumstances giving rise to this Amendment are the following. Clause 5(7) provides that judgment in breach of contract cases instituted after 5ti June 1967, the date of publication of the Bill, may be set aside, provided that they have not been satisfied in whole or in part—that is to say that money has not been paid over—on the application of the employer within two months from Royal Assent.
The Amendment substitutes the period of one month for the term of two months. Originally it was thought that

a period of two months was necessary, but it is felt that an employer who desires to act could do so in a shorter time than a month and to extend the time within which to set aside the judgment unnecessarily might well prejudice industrial relations. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend decided on this Amendment to reduce the period to one month, which I hope will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Attorney-General has not gone into this dreadful subsection in any detail. I must briefly explain what it does.
This is the fourth conflicting stage of an unfortunate award or agreement for a wage increase. Four stages are envisaged in the subsection. First, there is an agreement for an increase of wages. Secondly, the Government issue a decree disallowing the increase and the employer does not therefore pay it. Thirdly, the courts say that the decree is invalid and the employer ought to have paid it. Finally, by this subsection the employer is allowed to go to the court and make the court eat its words. If that is not


a very dismal state of affairs, I do not know what is. Whether the employer has one month or two in which to do this is not a matter of great moment. That is about all I can agree with in this sorry story.
What is surprising is that the one month concerned, the one month after the Royal Assent, is the month of August—the very month when most employers and their legal advisers, and indeed the courts, are on holiday. It seems rather unfortunate that the Attorney-General has chosen the very month in the whole year in which it is hardest for employers to have time to consult their legal advisers and consider their position. On that dismal note, I sit down.

Mr. Mikardo: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the Amendment is not a matter of great moment. Nevertheless, as one who has said some pretty cruel things to the Government in these debates, and will do so before we have finished them, I feel that in justice I should say a word of thanks for the partial concession which my right hon. and learned Friend has announced. I express my thanks to him personally because I know that it was he personally who got this Amendment placed on the Notice Paper.
I shall tell the House how it came about. It was agreed at an interdepartmental meeting of the First Secretary and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney-General. I was not there but I had a blow-by-blow account of what happened by Mr. Chapman Pincher who, by a remarkable acrobatic feat, had his eye and his ear simultaneously linked to the keyhole. My three right hon. Friends had a look at the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I had put down, Amendment No. 36. They discussed what to do with it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, "We must give these fellows something. They have put down a lot of good ideas and we have resisted everything. After all, I am a trade unionist myself, or a bit of a one. We need to give them something. This is a pretty innocuous thing. Let us give them this one". Whereupon the First Secretary, in rejoinder, said, "Not on your Nelly.

I don't mind making an odd concession to the Opposition every now and then, but as for the lot of Vietcong on the third bench below the Gangway, I wouldn't give them an inch". Whereupon, up spoke the Attorney-General, who is known throughout Government circles as Elwyn the Blessed, because he is the inter-Departmental peacemaker. He said, "Tell you what. We said two months; they ask for two weeks. Let's give them a month". That is how it came about.
On that I say "Thank you very much" to the Attorney-General.

5.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has allowed cheerfulness to break in, even at this late hour, and I congratulate him on his Damon Runyanism, even though the connection between it and the facts is not even, unfortunately, coincidental on this occasion.
As to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), of course there are precedents for what is being done here, and perhaps the most remarkable was in the Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act, 1954, which not only had retrospective effect of the type which is contained in Clause 5 of the Bill but, by virtue of that provision which was enthusiastically supported by the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, sums paid in respect of any court orders were ordered to be repaid. That, at any rate, we have not done here.
I am glad the Amendment has received the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY.)

Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 8, line 16, to leave out from 'the' to the end of line 19 and to insert '31st December 1967'.
This is an attempt to limit the effects of the Bill, which my hon. Friends and I have regarded, from the time it was conceived, as not merely discriminatory and anti-trade union in character but, most importantly, as utterly irrelevant to a solution of our basic economic


problem. Regrettably, our efforts to persuade the Government of the folly of their ways have so far been unavailing. Despite the persistent and eloquent pleading of my hon. Friends, the Government have persisted in their folly, and this, the second Prices and Incomes Bill, apart from being a watered down version of Prices and Incomes Bill No. 1, is to us confirmation that the Government have no real intention of getting out of the field of industrial negotiation, but instead, in spite of the sobering experience of the first year's effects of this pernicious, class-conscious legislation, hanker after a well disciplined trade union movement grateful for whatever crumbs may fall from the employers' table.
Granted the undeniable wisdom of those observations, the fact remains that the Government remain apparently unpersuaded. Therefore, very much as a second-best, my hon. Friends and I, in a final desperate attempt to minimise the danger written into every line of this short-sighted and disastrous Measure, seek by this Amendment at least to limit in time the application of part of the Act. We believe that restricting the duration of the Act in the way the Amendment suggests will give just enough time to persuade millions of workers throughout the country who had the impression, no doubt erroneously, that this was a Measure only a Tory Government would propose, was quite wrong. Indeed, it might even persuade them that Labour is on their side, though this is an idea rather hard to swallow these days in certain trade union circles.
In the belief that half a loaf is better than none in this instance, I beg to move.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Amendment has been so drafted as to do partly less and partly more than my hon. Friend wanted. If he looks at the exact alteration in the wording which it would make, he will notice that, as the Bill stands, the Sections referred to come to an end on 11th August, 1968, or on any earlier date on which Part II of the Act or the relevant provisions of it cease to be in force. That means that it would be possible to bring the Sections in question to an end at any time by the Government deciding to revoke the Order, which I trust that the House will make before long, to bring Part II into force.
Under the Amendment, it would be impossible in any circumstances to bring these Sections to an end before 31st December, whereas under the Bill it would at least be possible to do so. I cannot think that my hon. Friend intended that result.
On the other hand, from his point of view the Amendment does too little. If he wants to impose a time limit, the only sensible thing to do would be to make the relevant date, say, 12th or 31st August. To make it 31st December means that one is saddled with all the labour that we have been through of passing the Bill, and possible administrative difficulties thereafter, for a period of time which, from the point of view of those of us who believe in the Bill, would be too little for it to be of much use and, from the point of view of those who dislike the Bill, would be large enough to cause irritation.
I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has fallen between two if not three stools in the Amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should like to spring to the defence of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), and, if he feels unable to exercise his feet in the Division Lobby, we shall be happy to do it for him.
Of course, I understand the purpose of his Amendment, and I suspect that the First Secretary does, too. He dislikes the Bill and, partly for the same reason and partly for different reasons, so do we. Having been defeated, naturally, because of the composition of the House, not only on Second Reading but on the Amendments as we have toiled through the night, one keeps trying at least to minimise the damage which can be done.
Sections 1 to 3 of the Bill follow on 12th August, 1967, and Amendment No. 41 brings Sections 1 to 3 to an end on 31st December, 1967, including any extra orders, I take it. The First Secretary said, first of all, that that does too much because it removes the possibility of action being taken to bring the Bill to an end at an earlier date. That is possible, but it is so wildly unlikely that I do not think that we need spend time considering anything so ridiculous.
I pass to his second argument, which is that it does too little, which is an


odd point of view to put forward, because the hon. Gentleman might have suggested 14th or 15th August, instead of 31st December. That is quite true, as far as it goes. I suggested on an earlier Amendment—and the next Amendment to which we come has some echoes of this—that we might bring the Bill to an end on 11th August, 1968. I should prefer to cut its throat tonight, but one must put something on the Order Paper to act as a peg on which to hang our arguments to say that it should not go on as disastrously long as the Government intend.
I think that the First Secretary is wrong and that the hon. Member for Feltham is right on this. It is true that the 31st December is an arbitrary date, but it is as good as any other, and a darned sight better than the one which will be in operation, if there is such a date, under the Bill. I would therefore advise this side of the House that this is an Amendment, a half loaf Amendment it is true, but a good one for all that, which is worthy of our support.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would like to test the sincerity of the First Secretary's first argument. He objected to the Amendment on the basis that it would inhibit the making of an Order putting Part II out of operation before the 31st December. Legally this is no doubt right, but can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is the wildest chance of the Government deciding to take that step? Is there the slightest possibility of that? What is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating if he is thinking of this?
There seem to be only two possibilities. First, that contrary to all the facts he is expecting a miraculous recovery of the

Division No. 451.]
AYES
[5.58 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Chapman, Donald
Ensor, David


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Jack
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Joel
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forrester, John


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gardner, Tony


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Boston, Terence
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Brown, Hugh W. (G'gow, Provan)
Dobson, Ray
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hamling William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hannan, William

economy this autumn. Is he really expecting that, when he knows that everybody who has studied these matters knows how serious the situation is going to be? The only alternative is that he knows the situation will be so bad that he will revoke this because he will be replacing it with the sterner legislation at which the Lord President of the Council hinted the other day. This is no doubt the more probable of the two possibilities.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with using the argument that acceptance of the Amendment would prevent a revocation Order, unless he is prepared to say that there is at least a bare possibility of it, and that at this moment the Government contemplate the possibility of that, and they would really want to do this. Otherwise, it is a bogus argument, which I imagine his hon. Friends against whom it was used will find a little irritating, and something of an insult to their intelligence.

Mr. M. Stewart: If I may reply with the leave of the House, I do not think so. I think it wildly unlikely that the Order which we shall ask the House to agree to shortly to bring Part II into operation will be revoked before the 31st December. The only point I was making was that if I were to put down an Amendment, the purpose of which was to indicate that I wanted the Bill to have as short a life as possible, I would not word it in such a way that it would preclude even a bare possibility of it ending earlier than the 31st December. That is all.

Question put, That the words "11th August 1968" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 99.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William
Small, William


Hilton, W. S.
Moonman, Eric
Snow, Julian


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hucfield, L.
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitaker, Ben


Ledger, Ron
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitlock, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Luard, Evan
Reet, Merlyn
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)
Reynolds, G. W.
Winnick, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
Yates, Victor


McBride, Neil
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)



Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Sheldon, Robert
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jaseper


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Busk, Antony (Colchester)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howel, David (Guildford)
Sharpies, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Hunt, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Wall, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Webster, David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Worsley, Marcus


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin



Farr, John
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Mr. Anthony Grant and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

6.7 a.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this stage, it is, perhaps, fortunate in the circumstances that we are required to confine our arguments to what is in the Bill and not discuss the general range of economic conditions in which the Bill is placed. The Bill is concerned with the use of legal powers in the prices and incomes policy, and it is for that reason unwelcome to a certain number of hon. Members. In one of our debates yester-

day, I stated what I believe to be the goal which we should have in mind in regard to prices and incomes policy, that is, something which is voluntary but which is not what is popularly called a free-for-all—in other words, acceptance by trade unions, manufacturers and suppliers of the proposition that it is in the general interest that people do not approach every single operation of wage or price fixing with an exclusive concern for what they think will be immediately solely to their advantage.
I advance that principle on the ground that, if people do behave in that manner, they do not in the end serve their own interests best. I believe that that principle embodies the real object of our policy, that we want not what is popularly called a free-for-all but a voluntary acceptance of something wiser, shrewder and more public spirited than that.
We are then faced with the question: Is it right in any circumstances whatever for a limited period in an emergency for the Government to have a part in the form of statutory powers? I think it is common agreement that if they have such a part it should be for a limited period, and it should be only if it can be justified by emergency. What is in dispute, I think, is whether in the present circumstances it is right to have the degree of statutory power that is stated in the Bill. That is the main issue on Third Reading.
The Government took the view that this amount of statutory power was right for the following reason. Before July, 1966, the nation was endeavouring to work what I regarded as the best solution, something that was voluntary but not a free-for-all. Last July under the pressure of what I think everyone agreed was emergency we took considerable statutory powers in Part IV. Part IV was activated last October, and that activation was done with the agreement of the trade union movement.
I well remember in the debate on this matter at the Labour Party Conference two remarks made by trade unionists which illustrated very clearly the opposing points of view. There was the remark made by Mr. Sydney Greene speaking for a group of workers who have been far from well paid. He said that he supported what the Government proposed to do
because my members are sick and tired of having to run and run and always remaining in the same place.
He felt that unless there was some concerted policy which would prevent prices racing away the workers whom he represented were in a position where they could not win. That was one point of view.
The other point of view was expressed by a trade union leader who said, quite simply:
I can look after myself.

Mr. Orme: That is not true.

Mr. Stewart: It is. I was there and heard it.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend must not repeat a complete untruth. Mr. Jenkins was replying to a retort from the floor. He was not talking about looking after himself in selfish terms of trade union leadership. He was talking about looking after himself in relation to the platform, not in relation to the trade union movement.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is not entitled to say that what I said was untrue. Many of us were there and heard those words used.

Mr. Mikardo: What was the context?

Mr. Stewart: The context is something that everyone can study.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot rose—

Mr. Stewart: Just a moment. I am replying to one intervention. My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has proceeded in an orderly fashion. Let it continue so.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend can put what interpretation on it he chooses.

Mr. Foot: Will my right hon. Friend give way now?

Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Foot: Everyone who studies the matter will recognise—indeed it was stated quite clearly by Mr. Clive Jenkins afterwards—that what he was referring to was the attempt by the chairman to deal with interrupters. He said:
I can look after myself.
He was referring solely to the fact that he did not need assistance in dealing with interruptions. That was made absolutely plain thereafter. It is quite improper for my right hon. Friend to make this allegation, and I hope he will withdraw it.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the information that my hon. Friend gives is correct.

Mr. Foot: It is correct.

Mr. Stewart: It was not accepted by the audience at the time who heard the


words. Perhaps I might draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to something else. Earlier today he was arguing that trade union leaders representing the interests of higher paid workers were bound by the nature of their job to press for the best bargain they could. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this a little more than when he said it.
If it is to be taken as a general rule that a trade union leader, on finding at any point that the union which he leads is in a strong bargaining position, may decide to exploit that to the full, whatever effect it may have on the general economic situation, then I do not believe that that is the right thing to do. Indeed, I do not believe it to be in the long-term interest of even the members whom he is hoping to serve, and that is the point I am making. If I did an injustice to Mr. Clive Jenkins, I am sorry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Smear"]— but I am bound to say that if words like "smear" are to be thrown about, those who take the opposite view to that of the Government are not particularly nice in their choice of words. People must not be as thin skinned as this when they are being outspoken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I have got used to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not mind what they say.
The point at issue is an extremely important one. If every group in society were to say, "We are in a strong bargaining position. It is not only our right, but duty, to exploit it to the full," the result would be disastrous for us all. That is why I repeat that we must work for a policy which is voluntary and public spirited. This problem then arises: does one, at any time, need a degree of statutory power. And the issue is whether, at this juncture, the amount of statutory power in the Bill is right.
The Government hold their present view because, after having had a period of seeking to achieve a really voluntary system, based on the Statement of Intent, we then had the emergency situation of July and, in consequences, the exceptional powers of Part IV; and the activation of Part IV at the time as I have said received the assent of the trade union movement. In deciding, since then, to move away from Part IV and again towards a fully voluntary system, one

should consider whether it would have been wise or prudent, in the present difficult situation—and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) drew attention to how difficult it can be—to make that change completely and in one step. I do not believe that would have been the prudent thing to do.
That, and nothing else, is really the point at issue. I understand the strong feelings that come from very different quarters; those who have a legal background feeling concerned about the attitude towards contracts, those with a trade union background feeling concerned about penal provisions and all of us, as citizens of a free country, always wanting carefully to scrutinise any assumption of powers by the Government. But while we may feel strongly on this issue, we should note the measure of agreement that exists; the almost universal—but not 100 per cent.—agreement that we want a policy that is voluntary, and not a free-for-all. I think that there would be fairly wide agreement that there can be circumstances in which some degree of legal powers can, for a time, be justified.
That leaves us with this point in dispute: is the amount of legal power in the Bill, for the time stated in the Measure, justified at the present time? Having stated the issue, it would be going beyond Third Reading if I tried to argue the economic arguments to and fro—[Interruption.]—the argument which people want to weigh up in order to answer that question. However, I state the question so that it should be clear to the House what is here at issue.
My hon. Friends who disagree with the Government should see the issue for what it is. The charge that the Government are permanently wedded to the principle of legal powers has no foundation. After the time that we have spent on the Bill, no-one can seriously suspect the Government of wanting to make this an annual exercise. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members, whatever their feelings on the Bill, will realise that the Government have made the right decision on legal powers. None the less, not only the Government but the nation are engaged in trying to establish a voluntary policy towards prices and incomes as against letting things slide or work themselves


out—but I would stress a voluntary policy, without legal compulsions.
It was inevitable that, in this attempt, which the nation must continue, there were bound to be some false starts and differences of opinion as to whether each part was being properly handled, but I hope that those differences will not blind the nation to the enormous importance of trying to work out the principles of a just, permanent and voluntary policy for prices, productivity and incomes.

6.23 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: I oppose the Third Reading, and do not doubt that I will carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me. The First Secretary has just told us what he believes a prices and incomes policy should be, and he raised the crucial question of whether this degree of statutory power is needed at present. Our clear contention is that it is not. It is not what he said that drives one to this conclusion, and still less is it the White Paper which is now the Third Schedule to the Bill, on the prices and incomes policy after 30th June, which contains a clear contradiction between the second paragraph and the sixth.
The second says that the measures of last July
… have eliminated the excess pressure of demand, have freed resources for export production and other essential purposes, and have slowed down the rise in prices and incomes.
The sixth says:
More immediately the aim must be to avoid any widespread and unjustifiable increases in prices due to pressures which may have been building up during the periods of standstill and severe restraint.
Unless we know which of those statements the Government believe, we cannot judge on their basis whether the Bill is necessary. We do not believe that it is, because the voluntary policy on which it is based is false.
We must consider in this context the statements on television last night—when we were saying that he should have been in the House—by the Leader of the House. In reply to the interviewer, he said:
Well, I'm not concerned with what the Labour Party said but what I said. That is what really matters; and what I said was 'now look'—I was talking to my own comrades in the party—I said 'Now look: if we can make the wages policy work on a volun-

tary basis, good, but if we cannot make it work, then we're back where we were before, with the one thing we are fighting to avoid, which is unemployment'.
Unemployment does not follow from that. That means unemployment the Government are deliberately going to create. It seems that the Leader of the House has jumped from the frying pan into the fire in arguing for going back to Part IV or going back to mass unemployment.
We cannot judge the Bill unless we are clear on the Government's attitude to this essential question. It is perfectly clear that they are going to continue time and time again to renew the statutory powers under the Bill.
In the two-year period from July last year to July next year the net effect of the policy will probably be zero and any restraint exercised will be the result of the July measures and not the prices and incomes policy incorporated in the Bill. Yet the cost of the Bill and the policy is very heavy.
There has been the complete disorganisation of the Government's programme in the House. That is something with which we could bear. In addition, as the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, agreements for the improvement of efficiency and productivity have been positively delayed and inhibited by the Bill.
There has been the sad toll in good industrial relations resulting from the Bill and the measures introduced to bring the full weight of the criminal law upon trade unions which do not comply with the Government's wishes. The debate on this was closured earlier. What we are getting, if that Clause needs to be in the Bill, is not free-for-all but free-for-gaol. There is the question of retrospection, which is not an unfortunate lapse but an intrinsic part of the Government's policy. The Government are putting more and more retrospection into legislation as a habit.
There is the question of the abandonment of contracts. The contrast between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend and the Government's view is that he said that contracts should be binding. The Bill strikes at the basis of contracts and suggests that they are not important and can be


brushed aside. None of the cost is surprising in the context of a policy which is based on intimidation and discrimination rather than any appraisal of the situation.
I want to turn from the pragmatic approach which we had from the First Secretary last year to the metaphysics of the First Secretary this year. He has asked us to distinguish between a fully voluntary policy and a voluntary policy.

Mr. M. Stewart: I made clear last night and again today that I made no distinction between these two terms.

Mr. Higgins: I am glad to know that there is no distinction between fully voluntary policy and voluntary policy. If the First Secretary looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he changed his ground and drew a distinction.
There are four classifications of the policy. There is a fully compulsory policy which would involve the direction of labour and a centrally controlled economy. Some hon. Members seemed to be verging near this last night. There is a compulsory policy which is Part IV. There is a voluntary policy which would appear to be Part II. Finally, there is a fully voluntary policy where everything goes on all right and everyone is a volunteer. Under the terms of the Bill it is difficult for employers and trade unions or anyone else to know precisely what they are volunteering for. Anyone who took part in the debate with the Attorney-General must be very uncertain about what he is volunteering for.
The essential point is that from beginning to end the right hon. Gentleman has not told us how his voluntary policy or fully voluntary policy towards which he is moving is distinguished from what he called a free for all. It boils down to what has been described as ear stroking. He: says, "We shall have no compulsory powers. We shall just ask eveyone to co-operate". But no one will do so unless he has a guarantee that everyone else will co-operate. Therefore, if we accept the right hon. Gntleman's argument, I do not see how we can get away from an element of compulsion either in terms of Part II or in terms of the Bill. We shall see a repetition of the kind of Bill that we are discussing—

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member argues that what I call a voluntary policy

will not work and will be indistinguishable from a free-for-all. Does he take the view that what the T.U.C. are trying to do is useless and doomed to failure?

Mr. Higgins: It is not for me to explain at this stage what the right hon. Gentleman means by a voluntary policy. Time and again he has failed to explain it, and he has had enough opportunities in the last two days to tell us how he distinguishes his voluntary policy from a free-for-all. It may be that if he could implicate the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. in his policy he could reduce us to the Corporate State which we had in certain countries in Europe before the war and have a voluntary policy of that kind. Certainly after the Prime Minister's assurance on television, which has become notorious, it is clear that we are likely to find again and again a Bill of this kind or Part II being repeated over and over again and compulsory powers continuing in existence.
We are absolutely right to oppose the Bill because Government policy has not been universal; it is becoming more and more of a farce to suggest that the kind of discrimination which has taken place under the Bill has been universal. That has not been the case in respect of those cases which went to the courts and were then over-ruled or in respect of the vast majority of non-union labour, because the Bill discriminates against those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) called identifiable or noticeable. It is those it discriminates against.
It seems to us that the policy which the Government say will achieve a social justice is clearly destined to fail because the lowest-paid workers will not gain in the long run from a scheme of this kind which seeks to alter the differentials in such a way that economic efficiency is necessarily jeopardised. There is a great deal of poverty among the lowest-paid workers and the way to tackle that is through the social services. We need a much wider approach to the problem.
We feel that the Bill is utterly reprehensible. We are being asked to suffer for a benefit which has not been clearly demonstrated and I hope that the House will reject the Bill on Third Reading.

6.35 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I would not have detained the House for any length of time at


this hour except for the fact that, in some of the passages of my right hon. Friend's speech, he said some things which should not go without reply. There was almost a Freudian revelation in his speech. His slip started showing when he revealed the extent to which he hinges the action proposed to take under this Bill and hinges his resistance to the opposition to it round the person of one individual trade union leader whom he spent two-thirds of his speech attacking.
I do not refer here to his quotation of a piece out of context because my right hon. Friend withdrew that under some pressure—which is more than his right hon. Friend who was the author of it has had the decency to do. But my right hon. Friend did err in making his extreme, personalised attack on the opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Rubbish.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has not been with us, but he shouts "rubbish."

Mr. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mikardo: No. I will give way to any hon. Member who has been here for these debates. I have been here for two nights, barring one hour. I will give way with pleasure to anyone who has taken an interest in the Bill.
The fact is that my right hon. Friend is naturally a bit sensitive, because the gentleman to whom he referred has proved that the Government did not know the import of their own Act. There was a difference of view about what was the import of that Measure. Some people said that it meant one thing; the Government said that it meant another. No one wants to be proved wrong.
So I understand my right hon. Friend being sensitive about this matter. I have great respect for him. I should be the last to want to say anything that would hurt him and I say in all friendliness that he will carry more conviction with the trade union movement if he understands that the opposition to his policy throughout the movement is more widespread

than one individual or one union. It is widespread in terms both of the numbers of people involved and of the strength of their feelings.
My right hon. Friend should not try to elevate, if that is the right word, Mr. Clive Jenkins into the bogy of the single opposition to the Bill. Mr. Jenkins is the officer of a union. He has to do what his union tells him. [Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend laughs. I happen to have been a member of the National Executive of that union for more than 20 years. I do not know of any other union with a more democratic constitution. The National Executive has been unanimous in its opposition to the Bill.
Moreover, it has submitted its views every year to the union's delegate conference, which has endorsed them by overwhelming majorities. To say, therefore, and to snigger about it, that this is the activity of one man is doing a disservice and is denigrating a very large body of people who give a lot of their leisure time to helping one of our unions.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the activities of A.S.S.E.T. in this respect have been carried out continuously with the co-operation of four other unions—to the scientific workers, D.A.T.A., the Society of Technical Civil Servants and the Cine and Television Technicians' Union. These five unions have worked together throughout. This must not be dismissed as a one-man operation.
If my right hon. Friend thinks that he can isolate one man in this way, he should bear in mind that the union which has spearheaded the opposition to his policy is, as a result, the fastest growing union in the country. When, largely as a result of disillusionment with the Government's prices and incomes policy, most unions are having difficulty holding their membership and are not holding their contribution income by a long chalk, the union which has spearheaded the opposition is growing faster than any other.
I do not say that in order to be vainglorious about it, but in order to emphasise what I have already said, that it is nonsense and self-defeating for my right hon. Friend to try to present a picture of a trade union movement wholly in support of him, except for one man


who has to be painted as the villain of the piece. My right hon. Friend does himself and his Government no service by doing that sort of thing.
As I am on my feet, I want now to mike one or two observations about the parts of the Bill which concern the punitive measures against trade unionists and to make one or two observations which I would have made earlier in the night if I had not fallen foul of the moving of the Closure. I tried to make it clear in an intervention, since I could not get in a speech, that the dangerous part about these provisions was that they were a sort of hydrogen bomb, a sort of deterrent which could not possibly be used because it was so powerful, almost an ex act parallel situation with that of the hydrogen bomb.
If the Government ever used these powers, if, as I suggested earlier, one shop steward were to be proceeded against, were to refuse to pay his fine and so be put into prison, then the whole of the policy would be blown sky high. Therefore, the weapon which the Government have given themselves by this legislation is a weapon which, almost by definition, they dare not use.
My right hon. Friend might well ask me why in that case I am worried. We are all worried about nations having hydrogen bombs, even if we feel that they are too powerful to be used. The trouble is that we do not know what sort of Red Guards may get hold of one of them and we do not know how they might get to be used almost by accident. That is why some of us are worried about these punitive powers.
My right hon. Friend keeps assuring us, and did so again in an intervention only a few moments ago, that there is absolutely no intention whatever of making this sort of legislation permanent. Some anxieties have been expressed on that score and some anxieties about it are still felt not only in one quarter. Because of these many anxieties, my right hon. Friend keeps on having to utter these assurances.
There are some who say, but I am not one of them, that the speech of the Lord President of the Council made a justifiable contribution to those anxieties. I wish that my right hon. Friend would get together with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-

caster in order to agree about whether this legislation is temporary or permanent. I have in my hand the journal of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the issue of June, 1967, which contains an article headed:
Straight talk from Brother Lee
A condensed report of his Speech to National Committee.
I quote three paragraphs from this article which are as follows:
On this count he gave a warning. 'Without it (prices and incomes policy) we can never achieve the economic conditions in which we can give as much as we would like to the Social Services', he said. As an indication of future demands of the economy he indicated that the prices and incomes policy was here to stay.
'The need for the prices and incomes policy … is as great in times of economic solvency as when we are in difficulty ' he said.
'One of its effects will be to assist in the redistribution of incomes, which free collective bargaining can never do, he continued'.
I do not want to overstate it, but there seems to be some marginal inconsistency between what the First Secretary has been saying at intervals during two nights and the statement that prices and incomes policy is here to stay. There seems to be an inconsistency between the First Secretary's argument that this is a temporary measure to deal with economic crises and insolvency, and the observations of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the need for the prices and incomes policy:
…is as great in times of economic solvency as when we are in difficulty.
I am sure that both my right hon. Friends will feel some sympathy for the ordinary chaps on the back benches who try very hard to reconcile these conflicting statements, and do not always succeed in doing so.
As is well known, I think that this is a bad Bill. It is irrelevant to the solution of the nation's economic difficulties. While a good prices and incomes policy would be a contribution to that solution, this is not a good policy, and I hope that we shall see the back of this legislation as quickly as possible.

6.47 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not often find myself in any measure of agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), but what he said in his closing sentences expresses the view of many hon. Members on this side


of the House. It is certainly clear from the conduct of this matter that the Government have learned nothing, and, unlike the Bourbons, forgotten a lot. This Bill, the cornerstone of the Government's economic policy, has been taken on Report through two long nights, at the worst possible time for considering detailed and complex legislation and getting it right. We are exposed to this and the Government will be exposed to the consequences of this, for no other reason than the arrogant incompetence of the Leader of the House.
The Government did exactly the same last year with the 1966 Act. It was produced at a very late stage, with every mark of hurry and not subject to the proper process of legislation in this House at a reasonable hour of the day, when it could be examined. The Government paid the price. The hon. Member for Poplar reminded the House that the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary for nearly a year was purporting to exercise powers which the Court of Appeal found that he did not have, and when this was found out, he had to face the humiliation of coming to the Box and withdrawing no fewer than four of these Orders, for which he had no authority.
We shall have the same process again, because the same causes produce the same results. This is, equally, a horrid, botched-up Bill. It is a Bill full of retrospection, full of awkward, clumsy attempts to tie up with the previous Act. It contains one subsection 5(3), which the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the night admitted did not completely coincide with the policy set out in the White Paper which it was supposed to bring into effect. It was too difficult for the right hon. Gentleman—as near as he could get.
Legislation of this sort, as we saw with the previous Act, can produce the greatest trouble on any subject. When one has legislation of this sort, and in so sensitive an area as our national life as industrial relations, it is an absolutely simple recipe for trouble.
A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he really wanted a voluntary system. It was this Government, last year, which introduced compulsion for the first time. This Measure

carries on a measure of compulsion; to some extent in a different form, but still compulsion. It is a curious way to go towards the voluntary system which the right hon. Gentleman, hand on heart, says that he wants when he brings forward legislation to continue compulsion. It is rather like the epic journey of the poet:
The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.
He is going in the opposite direction with all this apparatus of retrospection and complicated provisions, which as the hon. Member for Poplar rightly said can be invoked against trade unions and trade union leaders who are only doing their duty as they see it—the introduction into this sensitive sphere of compulsion backed by criminal penalties.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman said that it will be temporary, but compulsion in these matters, once introduced, is very difficult to eliminate. I shall not weary the House at this hour by repeating the hints, not only of the Lord President of the Council, but of the Minister speaking in another place, that this was not the end of the road of compulsion. We cannot help remembering that the right hon. Gentleman last year was giving the impression that this was only temporary; this was just for a year and then all would be well.
Here again a badly drafted Bill, a badly constructed Bill is continuing compulsion. I venture to prophesy that it will be continued as long as this Government last. I do not believe that with their liking for compulsion and statutory powers of this sort they will give it up so long as they are in charge of our affairs. They will not want for ample excuse in the disturbed and distressed condition of our economy, which will equally persist so long as they are in office.
So we take leave of this Bill knowing that it will do little good and much harm, knowing that it is a Bill which in their hearts only the Government want, knowing that not only will it not serve the country but that it is a dangerous illusion to think that it is a substitute for sound economic policy.

6.53 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: There can be little doubt that this


Measure has caused a degree of anguish and has upset many supporters of Her Majesty's Government. That is nothing to be ashamed of. The Government are supported by a very sensitive and undoubtedly the greatest democratic organisation in the world. It is something which we should be proud of because what goes on in this House is talked at out, discussed and examined throughout t the entire structure of the Labour Movement.
Therefore when a Measure of this sort, which is very close to the founder part of our movement, the trade union movement, is passed, it is bound to cause feelings of great heart searching, grief and apprehension and to go even further —no doubt to the delight of the Opposition party—and cause grave splits within the British Labour movement. Naturally, the Opposition have had a very enjoyable time. They have had a hilarious evening, but behind this Measure there is indeed a very serious question. I hope to demonstrate in a few moments the grave responsibilities which the Opposition have because of their contribution over the years to creating a situation which called for some form of action, and if this is not precisely the right action, some action had to be taken. I say this in the interests of democratic organisations, and it will wipe the supercilious smiles off some of the faces opposite, because it is an extraordinarily serious issue. The basic argument is about the future economic structure of our nation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member is not going back, as I think it is the point he was about to make, to the 13 years of a previous Government.

Mr. Molloy: I was not really thinking of going back to the 13 dreadful years. What I was trying to point out was, that there is a great problem which is afflicting not only our country but, indeed, all Western democracies. Perhaps the problem was best outlined in a speech which the late Aneurin Bevan made in this House on 3rd November, 1959. What he said was this:
There is one important problem facing representative Parliamentary government in the whole of the world where it exists. It is being asked to solve a problem which so far it has failed to solve: that is, how to reconcile Parliamentary popularity with sound economic planning. So far, nobody on either

side of this House has succeeded and it is a problem which has to be solved if we are to meet the challenge that comes to us from other parts of the world and if we are to grout and to buttress the institutions of Parliamentary government in the affections of the population. … I would describe the central problem falling upon representative government in the Western world as how to persuade the people to forgo immediate satisfactions in order to build up the economic resources of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 862.]
Now it was this problem which the present Government at least had the guts to face. I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the criticisms which have been made through the early hours of today by many of my hon. Friends, and perhaps in other circumstances I might have been with them totally and completely, but let me say this, that despite all the errors which this Government may have made, or may make in the future, I would much prefer at any time men of their quality and calibre, belonging to the movement they do, to hon. Members opposite in dealing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot comment on the merits of the observations of the hon. Member, but they are out of order on Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Molloy: During the morning hon. Members opposite have had great fun in trying to exploit the embarrassment of the Government Nobody blames them for that; it is part of their job; but what, I am bound to say, I found particularly distasteful was their suddenly revealing their new found sympathy for British trade unionism. Indeed, at one time they seemed annoyed that there might not be the possibility of any more strikes—which they could so successfully exploit, as they have done so often in the past. Whenever there has been an industrial collision in this country members of the Tory Party have never failed to couple the Labour Party with the trade unions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Third Reading of the Bill. On the Third Reading of a Bill hon. Members may discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Molloy: In trying to relate my remarks to the Bill, I am pointing out that, when we are discussing an issue of this importance, the people of this country expect an honest argument. We


have not had that from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
With the achievement of a decent economic recovery, we shall be able to put this legislation behind us, so that our trade union movement can play its proper rùle. I hope that that time will not be too long in coming, though that again will irritate and annoy hon. Gentlemen opposite. When it does, this legislation will pass away, having done its job, and then the true function of British trade unionism can be resuscitated.

7.1 a.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) charged or, at any rate, averred—I do not know whether it was a charge or a congratulation—that we had had a hilarious evening and a lot of fun. I am not conscious of having had either—

Mr. Molloy: Mr. Molloy rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I know what the hon. Gentleman will say, and I accept his point. I was about to add that I was not conscious of having had either, at any rate until the last few minutes, and we must thank him for providing some hilarity and fun to lighten the somewhat sombre scene of the night and the discussion of this important and technical Bill.

Mr. Molloy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he correctly anticipated what I was thinking. He was wrong. I was thinking that the probability is that he was neither hilarious nor having an enjoyable time because he was probably not even conscious.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In answer to that intervention, I can only say that it confirms my first judgment, which was that I ought not to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I regret to say that it is about 15½ hours since I ventured to suggest that this method of conducting business, with all-night sittings, is not really good for the repute of this House in the context of the efficient and sensible running of our affairs. It is right to say that the Bill testifies to that. The Bill and its parent Act are both largely the result, parliamentarily speaking, of all-night dis-

cussion, and neither is any credit to the Statute Book.
The right hon. Gentleman prescribed the test of whether the Government had made a proper use of their legal powers by the content of the Bill. I accept the test. The answer is clearly that they have not in the content of this Bill satisfied that test and made a proper use of their legal powers. In saying that, I do not suggest that there is not scope for government in this context, and that there is not perhaps scope for statutory provision. I am conscious that there are lower-paid workers—for example, people doing socially useful but not directly productive work—whom the uninhibited operation of collective bargaining may leave further behind in the incomes race than social conscience ought to accept. I believe that to be true. Therefore, it is an over-simplification to say that all these great matters can be resolved simply by the unfettered mechanism of the market or by uninhibited collective bargaining by the great trades unions with the great employers' organisations. To say that there is a field, or may be a field, for Government activity or statutory provision is certainly not to say that this is it.
At the beginning of the Labour Government's term of office in 1964 I ventured to say that one of their prime faults was following a false syllogism—something must be done, this is something, therefore let us do it. They are still following that false syllogism after nearly three years, and this Bill is another very good example of it.
The Bill does everything, and is everything, which an Act of Parliament should not do and be. Whereas it should be clearly drafted, it is obscurely drafted. Whereas it should be clearly enforceable in its provisions, it is only doubtfully enforceable in its provisions. Whereas it should be equitable, it is in many respects inequitable. Whereas it should adhere to the constitutional proprieties, it does violence to them in many respects, and the two respects in which it mainly does violence to them are those of retrospection and invasion of the sanctity of contract.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he sympathised with the concern of lawyers for these matters. I have served the law for a good many years, but it


is not only lawyers who are concerned about these matters. These are the fundamental principles on which our democratic community works, and to invade these principles, as has been done in the Bill, is to derogate from the democratic and traditional basis of our society.
During the discussions on Report we had instances of the retrospective provisions of the Bill. May I remind the House of what is said in the leading textbook which I quoted earlier in regard to retrospection:
Every statute, it has been said, which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, of imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed, out of respect to the legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation.
"Out of respect to the legislature", and yet here the legislature is ceasing to respect its own tradition, because we are increasingly being invited to put these retrospective provisions into our Statutes.
The other matter is the invasion of the sanctity of contract. I cannot think that it is right, as a result of Government exhortation, to get people to breach their contracts, and then offer them a statutory defence. This principle is foreign to the traditional evolution of our law, and one out of which mischief may come.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. BoydCarpenter) rightly said that compulsion is liable to grow. It is, to use the modern idiom, a drug of addiction, and all these things which the Government are doing here, their compulsion, their retrospection, their invasion of sanctity of contract, are things which are likely to continue.
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said that there was an inconsistency between Government spokesmen on whether all this was intended to be temporary or permanent. The Rent Acts were intended to be temporary. Income Tax was intended to be temporary. There are few things more permanent than Measures which start out to be temporary, and they have the added disadvantage that, because they are thought to be temporary, they are less fundamentally thought out when they are originally put on the Statute Book.
All this, I respectfully submit, amounts to a very substantial indictment of the

Measure that we are asked to approve. I think that the House would be false to its tradition and its duty to the community if it were to do other than deny the passage of the Bill.

7.10 a.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have sat through the complete two nights and days of the debates on the Bill and also the whole of the Committee stage. In respect of no Bill which I have ever seen through the House has there been so much inflation of what was originally a narrow piece of legislation. It is an important Bill, and the discussion, rightly, has been probing. It seems to me that we have debated an issue on what was quite a small basis, arising from previous legislation, and have extended it so fine that by the time of this Third Reading debate the impression has been created in some people's minds that the Bill is the whole of the Government's prices and incomes policy, instead of being only part of it.
In our debates mention has been made of the rights of the workers or employees, and the traditions thereof. Strong representations have been made, on behalf of the manufacturers, about the way in which they shall operate, but there no strong voice is raised on behalf of the consumer. There is no consumer T.U.C. which has a voice in negotiations with the Government. The C.B.I. is there, but the consumers are not.
I respect the Government's attempt and accept that the Bill is not perfect. I have never seen a Bill that was perfect. But I believe that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to do something which has never been done before, namely, to get some planning into our very mixed economy. I hope that as a result of that planning it will be less mixed, and that we shall move more towards a Socialist economy.
If we throw out the Measure we shall have nothing at all to put in its place. We are seeking to get the maximum amount of co-operation throughout the country in order to achieve a measure of justice and to improve standards of living, especially of the lower-paid worker. This can be done only by the intervention of bodies other than those engaged in bargaining on the question of wages or the prices to be charged for goods.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the reassurance that my right hon. Friend has given, not once but hundreds of times, both in Committee and on Report, about the nature of the statutory powers which are to be retained. It has been a source of amazement to me, especially in Committee, to consider the persistence of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Time and time again he has asked questions that seemed to me to receive very reasonable answers from my right hon. Friend and yet he has still said, "I am demanding an answer" If I have heard him say this once I have heard him say it hundreds of times.
My right hon. Friend has many failings, but he is not imprecise, nor is he woolly, in trying to answer questions put to him by opponents of the Bill, on whichever side of the House they may be. It has amazed me to hear the hon. Member for Worthing, and sometimes the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), accusing my right hon. Friend of not being precise in his answers, when my right hon. Friend has, in his usual logical and rational way, given the answers that the Opposition have demanded.
It has been a long session. We are now reaching the end. I apologise for delaying the House. I hope that as a result of the efforts we have made, in spite of the inconvenient times that we have had to sit, we shall succeed in getting the mass of the population behind us in trying to work out a rational policy which will provide more social justice and fairness, and will give more room for the economy to expand, not in a haphazard way but in the kind of way which will give the maximum benefit to our people.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Biffen: Like the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I have lived with the Report stage of the Bill for the last 50 hours or more, and I lived with the Bill in Standing Committee too, so that I have almost had enough; but it is such a detestable Bill that I shall vote with enthusiasm against it when the Division is called in a few minutes.
The powers sought under Clauses 1 to 3 and in relation to the new Schedule now to be inserted in the parent Act are designed, among other things, to improve

the status, the pay, the relative income of lower-paid workers. On that basis, the Bill has been presented and, to some extent, sold to many reluctant hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. We do not know whether this will happen in fact, but we do know what is shown by the latest figures available in the Ministry of Labour's June 1967 statistics on incomes, prices, employment and production. Between June, 1966, and January, 1967, the differential between skilled manual workers and labourers in engineering widened. It did not narrow; it did exactly the opposite of what this policy is supposed to achieve. My first point, therefore, is that what sketchy evidence there is does not support the oft-made assertion that the policy is assisting lower-paid workers.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on the responsibility of the Government in making references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in cooperation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. In furtherance of this, Ministers are concurring in one of the least prepossessing of their activities. This is not confined to Ministers; it applies to all politicians. I refer to the tendency to moralise, and particularly to moralise on what is presumed to be an acceptable code of commercial conduct.
This practice often proceeds from certain Governmental assumptions about, for instance, the exchange rate, about military deployment east of Suez, or about the level of internal public expenditure—all of which have certain consequences for the economy—which are not necessarily universally accepted. But there is assumed to be a universal morality which flows from these assumptions and decisions which ought to be accepted by anyone in commerce concerned with deciding a price or an income. In this connection, I read, and endorse, some observations by a distinguished trade unionist, Mr. Harry Nicholas, in an article he wrote on 17th June, 1966:
No less unrealistic is the supposition that workers will be especially responsvie to what is held to be `the national interest' over wages issues. Once a sense of injustice has been generated—and in this situation there always are some material grounds for such a feeling —no loyalties are likely to prevail over it.
I believe those to be not only profoundly wise and perceptive words but patriotic


words, too. When the indicated wishes of the Government are presumed to over-ride what individual choices and preferences are exercised within the framework of law, we move dangerously near a State which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) as the corporate State. The provisions of this Bill, and of Clauses 1 10 3 in particular, conduce to that situation.
Thirdly, we are told that this legisla1 ion is needed to give the reserve powers for a limited period of time until we can have a system which will be operated by the T.U.C. Operated by the T.U.C. over what? Over wages? Over incomes? But does the C.B.I. operate over prices? Of course not. Nobody in his right mind wants to see manufacturers ganging up to do collective price fixing. We should be moving away from that. So where is the logic in this policy?
Let there be no mistake; the idea of the T.U.C. wage vetting committee is to be the great gimmick of the year. I can quote no higher authority than the Prime Minister in his speech at Greenford on 3rd March:
Yesterday's acceptance by the Conference of Trade Union Executives of a new and permanent approach to a policy on incomes restraint is, I believe, of historic importance.
He concluded:
No one would underrate the greatness of this achievement or the formidable difficulties which its fulfilment will involve.
Sure—when 40 per cent. of the workers of the country are not even organised in unions.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Sixty per cent.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member is making my case better than I was doing.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West said that the First Secretary was always precise in his answers. All of us who have gone through this tog ether are genuinely appreciative of the way in which the First .Secretary has dealt with what has not been a particularly happy Bill. But there is this to consider. I understood the First Secretary to remark when he was making his Third Reading speech that before July, 1966, we had the best system of all. Are we to understand that the system to which he wishes to return is one whereby the T.L.C. has a vetting control, a volun-

tary system, over incomes? We do not know what the corresponding situation is for prices, but we will leave that on one side. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is working for? Is that what his fully voluntary system is? Let it not be forgotten that before 1966 there were no long-stop arrangements. They came in in the prices and incomes legislation last year.
It would be of great interest not only to the House but to all those who are expected to operate the policy outside to know that it is the final objective of the Government—and presumably in the reasonably near future, because we do not want to go through this charade every year—to have a system where there is no long-stop, where the T.U.C. can be allowed to get on and do the job on its own account. Goodness knows what sanctions it will have against those unions which opt not to volunteer!
Finally, I do not believe that this is the end of the road in prices and incomes legislation. I do not believe for one moment that the economic outlook, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, is such that the Government will not be presented with a chance to rationalise their instincts for more intervention and more control. My guess is that it will be blamed upon a deteriorating balance of payments arising out of the crisis in the Middle East.
I should like to indulge in unashamed self-advertisement by quoting what I said in the Third Reading debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill last year. Speaking in the context of what would happen 12 months from then, I said:
I can imagine that we shall be asked perhaps not to invoke Part IV, but to adjust the standstill periods in Part II."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1806.]
That is precisely what has happened. I do not claim any credit for that comment—that view was widely held, even on the benches opposite—and I am as confident today as I was a year ago. I am sure that prices and incomes legislation will still be with us 12 months from today.

7.25 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am glad of this opportunity to address the House, particularly since I am probably the first Ulsterman to do


so on the 12th of July. I rise to support my hon. Friends in opposing the Third Reading.
This is the latest of a long series of Measures we have had since the war designed fundamentally to correct the illness in our economy and the imbalance in our trade. I made several unsuccessful attempts to intervene while the First Secretary has been speaking to ask what he intends to do under this so-called voluntary policy. He made great play about the voluntary element being introduced, but when will the powers in the Bill come to an end?
I share the doubts which have been expressed by my hon. Friends. It is all very well to say that when these provisions cease to have effect—according to the First Secretary, in August of next year—it will be up to the trade unions and the S.B.I. voluntarily to arrive at an acceptable policy, but who will fix the norm? Will the Government no longer plan incomes and prices? If, on the other hand, the Government will continue to control and regulate prices and wages, the much talked of voluntary policy is meaningless.
Like the 1966 Act, the Bill is badly drafted. It is full of holes and anomalies. It will produce far more inequalities than it will cure. Only a week ago one of the main firms in my constituency, Harland and Wolff, was faced with a dispute which had arisen as a result of an Order made under the 1966 Act. Following Court of Appeal decisions, the Minister has revoked the Order, along with a number of others.
The Bill incorporates the theory that the Government know best. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)

Division No. 452.]
AYES
[7.33 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Chapman, Donald
Ensor, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Coe, Denis
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben


Harriett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Bence, Cyril
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tame
Gardner, Tony


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ginsburg, David


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gourlay, Harry


Boston, Terence
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dobson, Ray
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Hamling, William


Brown, R. W. (Shoroditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hannan, William

wondered why my hon. Friends and I oppose the Bill and say we cannot understand it. He called it a vehicle of social reform and, in using that phrase, he answered his own question. If the Bill is a vehicle of social reform and is designed to correct the anomaly whereby the most powerful unions can, without such a Measure, get more than their share by forceful bargaining, it will not achieve its purpose because it is diagnosing the wrong illness. The Government, faced with a patient who is sick with fever, are exposing him to the cold wind. This legislation is more likely to kill than cure the ills about which the First Secretary spoke. Unions are able to bargain because labour is scarce. If unions can thus demand higher wages than equivalent workers and attract scarce labour, surely the solution is not prices and incomes control but the prevention of these monopolistic practices. We should not seek to regulate the economy by this ill-drafted Bill, which creates anomalies and precludes economic flexibility and productivity, but should increase investment and productivity and thus reduce unit costs. This restrictive policy will never do it.

My main criticism is not just of the Bill but of the First Secretary's protest that it is only temporary and will be followed by a voluntary policy. The burden of the debate has been that the Government intend to plan the economy from now on, and this is but one sign of their interference. It is this type of Socialist interference which will ruin the economy.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 96.

Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Haseldine, Norman
Molloy, William
Skeffington, Arthur


Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Erie
Small, William


Hazell, Bert
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Snow, Julian


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Huckfield, L.
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Albert E.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,s.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitaker, Ben


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Ledger, Ron
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Luard, Evan
Richard, Ivor
Winnick, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Yates, Victor


Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macdonald, A. H.
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Sheldon, Robert
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)





NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, W. H. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharpies, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Temple, John M,


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weather ill, Bernard


Hden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Webster, David


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus



Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock a.m.